Canada's Big League Theatre

LT.-COL. MONTAGUE: Since the names Tom Patterson and Stratford Shakespearean Festival are synonymous it is difficult to think of either of them separately. Today that is neither necessary nor desirable as we are so fortunate as to have Mr. Patterson here to tell us about the Festival.

With so much of our attention rivetted on the international scene, it should be refreshing to be diverted for a while to the serious consideration of an artistic development which has assumed such national importance that it warrants our interest and concentrated attention.

As I have just said, Mr. Patterson will tell us about the Festival, but now I would like to tell you something about him.

He is a native of Stratford, Ontario, having first seen the light of day there towards the end of the first quarter of the 20th Century. His education was interrupted by World War II during which he served, here and abroad, with the Canadian Army from 1939 to 1945.

On returning to civil life he completed his education at the University of Toronto and graduated as a B.A. Embarking on a business career in the export and import field, he again saw something of the European scene before transferring his attention to the publishing business as a staff member of Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company Limited here on the inception of the periodical "Civic Administration". Starting as Editorial Assistant, he was Associate Editor when he left to set up and plan the first year of the Stratford Festival.

From here on his story is his to tell under the heading "Canada's Big League Theatre".

I have great pleasure in introducing to you Mr. Harry Thomas Patterson, B.A., Director of Planning of the Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada; a man who has seen a dream come true.

MR. PATTERSON: From looking at this audience, I know that there is very little need for me to go into the history of the Stratford Festival. Most of you have been there and have already taken a vital interest in it since its inception.

However, I would like to point out some rather startling parallels with another major artistic accomplishment which is very much in our minds today--The Report on the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences--more commonly known as the Massey Report.

Let me read a few paragraphs from the recommendations of that report. On Page 199 it states: "To many people the words `National Theatre' mean a building, probably in Ottawa; but unless such a building is a centre from which travelling companies go on tours throughout the length and breadth of Canada it would be a foolish extravagance. If the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre (England) we were told, could be transplanted bodily from Stratford-on-Avon to Ottawa-on-the-Rideau, with all its equipment, we would still be without a National Theatre. But if we can develop even one company, acting in a tent or in school halls, which can move Canadians to tears and laughter with the great plays of the past and with the great plays of the present, including perhaps a few of their own, we have the heart of a National Theatre." As you will recall, this report was published in 1951. At that time, there was very little hope of establishing such a theatre as was recommended. In fact, to quote the report again, "There is no National Theatre in Canada and nothing at present to indicate that there will be one." That was said only five years ago.

Certainly Stratford does not consider itself a National Theatre. There are still many things to do before that position can be reached by us or anybody else. But I do think you will agree that many of the requirements have already been fulfilled.

First of all, we have acted in a tent! And the fact that we are now building a permanent theatre does not indicate in the slightest that we are in disagreement with the Massey Report!

I think it is safe to say that we have moved many Canadians to tears and laughter; we are presenting the great plays of the past. We have not presented any plays of the present, but I do feel that the success of Stratford has encouraged others to do these more modern plays.

We, as Canadians have moved quite far along the paths suggested by the Massey Commission. And yet, in 1951, according to all indications and to the people who were in a position to know, there was nothing to indicate this remarkable development.

How then has it come about? How is it that in so short a time, we have built up a theatre with an international reputation; have touring and repertory companies throughout the country; have the beginnings of a drama school with a potentially international reputation?

To find the complete answer is perhaps impossible. But we can at least find some of the reasons. First of all, we must thank C.B.C. for the wonderful, and sometimes unrewarding work they have done in developing talent. No such movement in theatre could have been possible without this pool of very well-trained actors and actresses.

But then they existed before, so that cannot be a reason for this sudden blossoming. No, I think the answer is to be found much deeper than that.

As many of you people know from experience, Canada has just recently emerged from the bread and butter era of its growth. Even just before the last war, Canadians were still much more concerned with earning their daily wage, with the challenging task of building the country--the roads, the mines and the development of natural resources.

By the end of the war, the whole economic development of the country had changed. We were no longer worried about our bread and butter. In fact, if anything, we were worried about having too much of it--but no cake to go along and make a slightly better repast. Along with this change in our economics, came a change in our way of life. Many of our people had seen theatre and the other arts during their war-time service; the number of leisure hours was increasing continually. In every way, new forces were at work.

New forces were at work and people, perhaps unconsciously, were not willing to carry on with the pre-war way of life. They wanted something they were not being given by the Hollywood movies--something to give them some of the answers they were looking for.

That, in my opinion, is the main reason for the initial success of Stratford.

But if new forces were at work in 1945, they are even more so at work now--eleven years later. And these new forces are undermining the complacency which was a natural aftermath of the war. Because of this, there has been an even greater search for the answers. And because the answers can best be found by studying the old masters--we have automatically looked to the places where those masters can be found--the arts.

I think we are on an even greater threshold of artistic development in Canada.

There is one major difference, however, between this renaissance and any other that has taken place in history. In the past, we usually find that the arts have flourished in a period when material wealth, either individually or nationally, has been at a low ebb.

This perhaps proved a point--that, when necessary, the mind, can feed the body.

But today, we are in a situation where, perhaps for the first time, the body is better fed than it ever has been before--at least on this continent. And what happens? We are finding the arts an even more important part of our way of life.

Perhaps it is the attempt of man to furnish himself with the human values which transcend the overwhelming mass of scientific and technical data that we are being bombarded with every day of our, lives.

We find, for instance, great industrialists, financiers, manufacturers--all practical men--devoting more and more time and money to buying paintings, serving on ballet, music and drama committees.

And here, I would like to disagree violently with the attitude of many people connected with the arts. The other day, I was reading a report of a conference which took place in the United States. A well-known poet and professor at a famous University had this to say: "I question the sincerity of the industrialists in their new concern for the humanities on the ground that industrialists themselves have been mainly responsible for creating the monster that threatens to destroy the humanities."

This crying on somebody's shoulder, putting the blame on somebody else and begging for help--is all too prevalent amongst artists. Certainly, many of the arts and humanities need help--and I am here to say that the industrialists and the financier are amongst the first to realize this and to respond to the call. But they do not, in my opinion consider this as charity. And too often the case is presented as just that--a charity, rather than a practical need to the community.

And while I am at it, I would like to take another crack at us so-called artistic people. In the same report as mentioned before, one of the questions under consideration was "How may the culturally restrictive tendencies of the national emphasis in American studies be effectively reconciled with that international outlook and concern demanded by modern advances in trade, industry, technology and human relations."

That's a pretty weighty topic! It took me quite a while to find out what it really means and finally, I found the Key Word "reconcile". When broken down and using the Key Word, one finds that an English translation of this title is "How can we best impress the guys that have the dough".

But seriously, until people in the humanities stop treating their subject as something that has to be made mysterious, academic and above the common mass, and bring it into the field of a practical everyday need in the community, the fulfillment of which can be exciting, they will continue to be the poverty stricken portion of society.

I think our experience in Stratford proves this point. Even before the Festival started, we never claimed that it would make money, but we did sell the idea on the need for theatre in Canada--and made the fulfillment of that need an exciting prospect--an excitement which was infectious and caught up not only the people who were directly concerned--the actors, actresses and those connected with the arts--but to the business man, the banker, the janitor and even the student!!

You might say--Oh! yes--it is easy to make this exciting--but what about being practical? Well in the first part of your question, you would be perfectly right--It is easy to make a major artistic event exciting. And on the surface it is much more difficult to prove it "practical".

We can look at it first of all from the hard dollars and cents point of view--Lets compare the producing of a show to the bringing in of an oil well. The producer is convinced that he has a hit--just as the miner in, convinced he has a strike. They both spend considerable amounts of money before they are really in operation. Then comes the great day when returns start. If X number of people come to the show, it makes money. If X barrels of oil are mined, the mine makes money. Basically, it is as simple as that. However, there are other factors to take into consideration, and I'm afraid that here the comparison breaks down. First of all, the miner, with his instruments, can predict much more accurately than the producer of the show and, therefore, his gamble--and that of his backers, is not so great.

But the producer of a show has other advantages to offer--long term admittedly--but to a good business man and a good citizen, every bit as rewarding.

First, lets look at the advantages to the individual. A production like the Stratford Festival has proved to be more than just entertainment to the many thousands of people who have attended. More and more we are finding that a visit to the Festival is becoming part of people's holiday. In other words, they are forsaking the lakes and resorts, for a time at least, in favour of theatre.

So the arts can provide a desired form of recreation for our people. This is surely a practical benefit--especially with the increase in automation, which, as with any advantage, has certain disadvantages.

It is really a question of "balancing" our lives. The tempo we live m today demands that we have some form of relaxation and of intellectual exercise to balance against the mechanical way of life we are leading. Just as in wartime it was recognized by governments and individuals that the troops--whose whole life was taken up with the very practical matter of just existing--needed entertainment--and lets face it, art in its broadest sense is entertainment.

Now we, as civilians, living under stresses which have never been greater, need the same kind of stimulus and relaxation. The artist can give this, only providing he is recognized as a necessary part of society.

Theatre as with all the arts, can provide an opportunity for the 20th Century citizen to relax his body and obtain the food that is needed every bit as much as bread--the food that feeds the mind.

Now lets look at theatre from a National point of view--and here again, we have some very practical values. First of all, it gives employment to a large number of Canadians and this number is considerably larger than the layman suspects. As well as the actors, there are stage hands, musicians, wardrobe and property people, designers, ushers, publicity people and many others. It sometimes comes as a shock to people when they are told that the payroll in Stratford at the height of the season consists of from 150 to 200 people.

Then there is the tourist business--again using Stratford as an example--we have had chartered buses from as far away as Texas-Special trains from Detroit, Quebec City, and the weekly tours sponsored by the Toronto Telegram. In its four years--or a total of 35 performance weeks--Stratford has played to about half a million people--of which about 20% or 100,000 have been foreign visitors. Calculating the expenditure of each person at the very low amount of $25--Think what this has meant in extra money in the country.

Another value to the country--non-material perhaps, but nevertheless important--the success of the Festival has given Canadians a sense of pride in something which heretofore we have felt rather ashamed. We had to go to New York or London to see the best in the arts. Now, we can see the best right here. And this sense of pride, in the community and the country is very important to the development of a well-balanced population.

Last year, the Festival made another contribution to Canadian life when it invited French-Canadian actors to participate. This move has been hailed as one which has done more to promote better understanding between the two major racial groups of Canada than anything else since Confederation.

To quote the Financial Post: "Here is an example of the real mingling and intertwining of the country's two cultures ... No country but Canada is able, or has even tried before, to present Henry V just this way".

Tyrone Guthrie was the first to realize another value of the Festival. And although I am using the Festival as an example in all these cases, other forms of art have the same potential.

But Tyrone Guthrie, the man who is responsible for the great artistic success of the Festival, was the first to realize the force that such a project could be in the field of international affairs.

In a letter to Alex Guinness outlining his feelings on the whole idea, Dr. Guthrie said: "Canada is likely in a few years to be the richest and most powerful country in the world. There is a great sentimental urge in Canada to be influenced by Britain. There is a great practical urge to be influenced by the U.S.A. Almost every common sense argument based upon geography and economics drives Canada and U.S.A. into each others arms.

"If we the British are as stupid, as tactless and as apathetic about this as we look like being, it is just going to be George III and the Boston Tea Party all over again, with disastrous results all round.

"We, you and I, have a chance in this project to make an exceedingly conspicuous, and therefore potentially useful gesture in favour of Anglo-Canadian relationships.

"I have never before felt so convinced of the obvious practical value of anything I have been asked to be connected with."

This, gentlemen, was said late in 1952. How right Dr. Guthrie was. Even after the first year, after only six weeks of operation, the Stratford Festival had created such interest in Britain that Sir Shuldham Redfern, writing in the Montreal Star, said: "No other event since the war has done so much to enhance Anglo-Canadian friendship".

Since that time think what further has been done along these same lines. The NFB film THE STRATFORD ADVENTURE has been shown all over the world and has won awards at international film festivals. Another film, our production of Oedipus Rex, has also been made and was accepted by both the Edinburgh and Venice Film Festivals. Although this film has not been shown publicly yet, it will be opening soon, and from the reaction of the professionals who have seen it, I predict it will bring further laurels to Canada.

And then; of course, there is our major safari into the international world--the recent visit to Edinburgh. And here, I would like to thank again the Toronto Star who were so generous in making this trip possible by flying the entire company to Scotland and back.

But Edinburgh was quite a shock, I think, to the English theatre. For the first time, a Commonwealth company was appearing on one of the major stages of Europe--and it was a country which up until now had never produced anything startling in the way of the arts in general and especially of theatre.

But the audience reaction as well as much of the critical reaction was most enthusiastic. And the critics came, I think, with the idea that they would have to be rather kind to this Canadian effort. But by the time the performance was over, they were all convinced that here was a major development in theatre and that it would have to be treated the same as a top-scale production from any country.

As a result of this reaction, Canada's prestige was increased in a field in which she was otherwise unknown. Nor can this theatrical diplomacy only be applied to England. As far-seeing as Tyrone Guthrie's letter to Alec Guinness was, I don't think it went far enough. The Stratford Festival, along with the National Ballet, Canadian Players and many of our musicians, has done much to enhance Canadian reputation south of the border. Opening night at Stratford is just as important to theatrical critics and newspapers as is an opening on Broadway. And again, the stories go out in such revered papers as The Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Herald Tribune, Chicago Daily Tribune and many others. All these stories are selling Canada and changing her reputation as a country which produces nothing but wheat, oil, uranium, etc. to a country which is not only wealthy in the material things, but is mature in what are commonly called the finer things of life.

We all know of the great critical success the National Ballet has had in the U.S. Here again, Canada is being sold and people are being made to realize that our country is more than a land of ice and snow.

Just last week the Canadian Players appeared in the Library of Congress auditorium in Washington. The reaction to their performance was so enthusiastic that it prompted Mr. R. A. Farquharson, of the Canadian Embassy to write in a memorandum to all Canadian representatives in the U.S.A. that

"A show which can go on a bus and which can receive warm reviews from good critics is a new way to advertise Canada in the U.S. . . . They have perhaps developed a pocket sized theatre that Canada might export to other countries."

But so far I have only been talking about what theatre--and the other arts--have already done for us.

"What of the future?

As was announced some time ago, the Stratford Festival has entered into an agreement with Mr. Leonid Kipnis, producer of the film version of Oedipus Rex to do the entire Folio of Shakespeare on film. Again, Dr. Guthrie is in at the beginning and has been made Artistic Director of the new film company and I, with the full consent of the Festival Governors, am another director of the company.

But here in Canada--and with a Canadian company we are able to do something in the artistic field which has never been attempted before. Because of the lack of tradition here, we are able to make moves which are impossible in most other countries. And the most important of these at the moment, is to make a marriage between the film and the stage. This can create a whole new field of development in film-making techniques; it can offer stage actors much more chance of steady employment; and it can produce a quality of film for which Canada can become known throughout the world.

Again, these films, along with increased activity abroad by our stage companies, will further enhance Canada's reputation.

The permanent theatre which is now being built in Stratford is another example of how Canada can offer the world something new. Even before it has been built, we are receiving requests for technical information, pictures and theatrical data from Europe and the U.S.A. When it is completed, it will be hailed as one of the first new advances in theatrical construction since before the turn of the century.

The French-Canadian participation in Stratford can be increased---and I hope will be over the next few years. With a welding of our two great cultures, we can perhaps develop something that is even more typically Canadian than anything we have now.

Other forms of art have to grow in the same way, the same exciting way, as theatre has done in Canada. Musically, Stratford has had great critical success and our Canadian musicians are now establishing themselves on the stages of the world. The recent acclaim given to Miss Maureen Forrester in New York is just another indication of the great wealth of talent we have in this country. But as you know, just as no business can stand still, so the theatre and the arts must keep developing. What can we do to keep up the momentum of this birth of the arts in our country.

Firstly, and I think this most important, we must take an interest in what is going on. Admittedly, very few of us can make a full-time job out of this, but for the business man there is nothing better than a vital interest in some form of artistic activity. I can honestly say about our own Board of Governors that they have found their work with the Festival to be not only relaxing, but stimulating to the mind in a way in which the mind is not otherwise exercised.

Also, like any successful business, theatre needs good management. And if it is to be successful, it needs the experience of people fully conversant with business practice.

The arts need initial financial support. I think one of the most encouraging things to the artists of Canada at the moment is the recognition given them by the announcement this week of Prime Minister Louis Saint Laurent concerning the formation of the long-awaited Canada Council. Needless to say, this is going to give the necessary shot in the arm to many worthwhile projects--which up until now have been on the verge o£ bankruptcy for so long that it has become a natural state.

But this does not, in my opinion, release the individual and the corporations from doing their share in the development of the arts. If it is all left to the government, or to the Canada Council, the impetus which has already been established will soon be lost. The arts are essentially an individual thing--and they require individual attention not only on the part of the artist, but on the part of management and patronage.

In closing, I would like to read you three short comments from major publications which I think will sum up the importance placed upon the Festival outside of Canada. First from Brooks Atkinson of the New York Times. He says: "The Stratford Festival as an institution is a contribution to the cultural life of North America. For every one now recognizes that the Stratford Festival is a sound enterprise." And from The Times of London, England, we read: "It would be a tragedy for Canadian art as a whole if the fate of the Ontario Stratford, with all its means to the future, were left to chance." And finally, in reviewing the Festival's performance of Henry V, Le Morule of Paris said: "For the first time in our experience, the performance of the French parts in Henry V was not a parody."

These are comments from outside. I am very pleased to say, that the Stratford Festival is not one of those ventures which is appreciated only by foreigners. Herbert Whittaker of the Toronto Globe and Mail headed his article covering the first opening night of Stratford "The greatest night in Canadian theatre". I think he was not only reflecting the thoughts of all those who had the pleasure of attending that opening night, but the thoughts of all those interested in theatre throughout the country.

THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by Lt.-Col. N. D. Hogg.