WIT

THE LIVING PICTURES.

GEORGE EDWARDES, The Empire Theatre.

TH regard to the Living Pictures there is really very little to be said, and so far as the Empire Theatre of Varieties is concerned they have never been called in question even by the Licensing Committee of the County Council. On the contrary, that exacting body has given us great credit for the Living Pictures we have presented at the Empire, recognising them as beautiful things with no suggestion of harm. But then it must be remembered we have never represented a single picture in which there has been a nude figure. I first saw these Tableaux Vivants in Berlin, some time back, but they were not particularly well done there, and they were somewhat indecent, therefore I was not particularly impressed by them. But after a while it seemed to me that they might be made to provide a very charming form of entertainment. I select what I think are the most popular and celebrated pictures of the day, and these are represented as exactly as possible, Mr. Lanterré, the well-known sculptor, whom I have specially engaged for the purpose, superintends the draping and grouping of the tableaux, so that a really artistic effect may be attained. And I believe that these pictures, charmingly set as they are within the frame, with their beautiful harmonies of light and colour, the appropriate incidental music, and the singing behind the scenes, by appealing to the higher senses, produce as emotional an impression upon the spectators as do the stained-glass windows and organ-music in church. As to the exhibition of the nude in Living Pictures, that I entirely disapprove of; in fact, I hold very strong views against nude figures being represented upon the stage, considering that their attraction for those who care to see them depends mainly upon the idea of indecency. I should certainly object to my own daughters witnessing them. Of course, an artistic pictorial study of the female form divine is a very beautiful thing, but I consider that the impersonation of the nude upon the stage is calculated to do a deal of harm.

Vol. XI.-No. 66.

2 H

CHARLES MORTON, The Palace Theatre.

I REALLY don't know what I can say about the Living Pictures. They are very charming things, and we shall continue to present them so long as they prove as attractive as they do now, though we shall not give any pictures that the County Council say we must not give. For my own part, I cannot see the indecency they find in some of the nude or semi-nude pictures we have been giving, and I believe that, like myself, the people who come to the Palace Theatre regard these pretty things from the purely pictorial point of view, and are concerned with the ingenuity of the effects rather than with the fact that they are looking upon young women wearing little more than fleshings, with, in some cases, plaster moulds over the breasts. But, as a matter of fact, the Living Pictures which are most attractive and invariably win the greatest applause, are not those in which the nude figure is represented, but those in which a story is told. It is always the subjectpicture that is popular. For instance, in our present series the pictures which nightly arouse the greatest enthusiasm are "The Doctor," by Luke Fildes, R.A., and "Comrades: The Last Request," while a semi-nude picture called "Summer" comes perhaps next in popularity, because of its exquisite charm of colour and composition. We do not guarantee that we shall present in the future no pictures of the nude which we may consider beautiful and worthy of representation, but any particular picture that the County Council may object to will be promptly withdrawn. That is just how the matter stands, and we have nothing to grumble at.

MR. A. W. PINERO says:

THE Living Pictures are interesting from the point of view of story-telling alone, but I cannot agree that they have any real artistic value, for the eye of the spectator is mainly employed in tracing the resemblance between the impersonator of soldier or sailor, nymph or goddess, as the case may be, and the character which he or she is made up to represent. As mere "make up," however, is in the actor's art admittedly an element of minor importance, it cannot be of much moment as a feature in a group of poses plastiques.

If reproducing a painter's picture in solid form be really and truly the object sought after, why are not the figures modelled in wax or clay? And to make the whole thing consistent, why is not every

The fact that the back

detail of the background modelled also? ground is painted while the figures of the picture are living people shows me that the intrinsic attraction of the Living Pictures is merely a matter, as I have suggested, of vivid impersonation. The spectator is not impressed with the idea that he is looking upon a picture or upon the reproduction of a picture, but rather that he is viewing the impersonation of certain characters by living people. When, therefore, he sees a woman clad only in a garment representing the bare skin, he knows that he is looking upon a woman who is impersonating a naked woman, and to impersonate a naked woman upon the stage is obviously an indecency.

MR. MARCUS STONE, R.A.

I HAVE seen only one set of Living Pictures. I was pleased to observe them to be very popular with a music-hall audience, which is supposed to prefer rather worse fare.

The pictures were on the whole very well produced. They surely must, if done honestly, wholesomely, and artistically, serve more or less those good purposes which pictorial art is fondly hoped to serve -to refine, to delight purely, to elevate, and perhaps to teach.

WM. ALEX. COOTE, Secretary of the National Vigilance Association. THERE can be no question as to the value of the Living Pictures as a means of entertainment. The incidents so depicted impress the mind of the observer more readily than when seen on canvas. The surroundings and music, while they add to the pretty effect, take away from them any pretence to an art-exhibition. All these adjuncts combine to render the minds of the audience much more receptive to the lessons which these tableaux are intended to teach. Hence the importance of watching carefully that they are not made the means of conveying impure thoughts to the minds of young men and women, or offending the good taste of the paterfamilias, when with his household he resorts to the music hall for amusement. There is ample scope in this new form of entertainment to bring before the audiences domestic and national scenes of the most taking and captivating character, without introducing what are termed nude pictures. If, as has been asserted, these Living Pictures are really art productions, it ought not, in the interest of art, to be left to a stage manager to prove it. The fact is, there is

no pretension whatever to art. Almost every canon of art is sacrificed in the production. True art can only afford, even on canvas, to produce the whole from sections. No piece of ideal beauty is ever literally produced from one model. I have always understood that the face from one, the neck and arms from another, and so on, until the production is complete, is the method adopted by artists. It is altogether different with regard to these pictures. They are so obviously "living." In them human nature is very much in evidence. The nude, as represented by the true artist on canvas, never has the slightest tendency to demoralise. The artist's soul so consciously pervades his work, that the beauty of the form and pose hide that which would mar or vulgarise the picture. The whole subject is spiritualised, and as an inspiration creates good and lovely thoughts. Not so the Living Picture. There is not the slightest semblance of art in it. Paradoxical as it may seem, there is no artistic life in the Living Picture. It is even posed as a lifeless mass. There is a marked difference between the canvas or marble and the Living Picture, and no one is so quick to perceive it as the art student.

I should have thought that artists would have seized the opportunity the discussion has offered them, and risen in a body to protest against the Living Pictures as degrading art. But then art, like other things, is sometimes wounded in the house of its friends.

ARTHUR SYMONS.

IF Lady Henry Somerset, and the other scrupulous people who have objected to the Living Pictures at the Palace, had done so in the name of art, I should at all events have been able to understand their point of view. A picture, for the most part, is an imitation of life, and a living picture is life imitating an imitation of itself, which seems a little roundabout. But still, though the æsthetic justification of the thing is very different from the æsthetic justification of a ballet, for instance, though it cannot be taken on so high a level, or treated so seriously, I find quite sufficient excuse for its existence in the fact that a great many people like it. These pictures are pretty; they afford, as I conceive, harmless gratification to a number of persons; and there the matter might begin and end. But it appears that the objection to them is that, wherever they show more of a woman's figure than one can see in a ball-room, they are indecent.

Now here I feel a little uncertain of the exact logic of the situation, so far as the position of Lady Henry Somerset and the others is concerned. I believe that Lady Henry Somerset grounded her objection on the presumable "moral ruin and degradation" which the wearing of tights and the removal of corsets would cause to a girl who took part in such a performance. If anyone really believes that, I can only say that such a person must be very ingenuous and very ill-informed. A girl who is accustomed to the stage thinks no more about the eyes of the audience and the cut of her costume than you or I, when we are walking along the street, think about the swift, imperceptible criticism of the indistinguishable crowd. Or, if she thinks of the matter at all, it is as a friend of mine thought when she said to me, only the other day: "I sometimes wish I had a better figure; I never think about anything else."

But there are others who object to the alleged indecency of these Living Pictures on the ground that, by their absence of clothing, they appeal to the senses. Well, let us be quite frank on this matter; let us admit that these pictures do appeal to the senses, precisely as much and precisely as little as a woman in evening dress at a dinnerparty. It is not because you show an inch more here or an inch less there; it is because man is man, and woman woman. The appeal of sex comes to us in the fold of every dress, in the glance of every eye, in the glow of every spring morning; more subtly, often enough, in the glimpse of a stocking than in the appraisement of a nude model. It should be remembered that there are certain savage races among whom only the prostitutes wear clothing.

Then, in conclusion, I should like to ask one question. If the female figure is supposed to be indecent, why is not the male figure indecent also? Why is it that the very "purest" of women have never yet, to my knowledge, objected to the semi-nudity in which every kind of athlete is seen, indoors and out of doors, wherever a manly sport or a gymnastic exercise is engaged in? We are assured that "the baser passions" of the male part of an audience are likely to be "inflamed" by the sight of the outlines of the female figure. Are "the baser passions," then, of the female part of an audience likely to be "inflamed " by the sight of the outlines of the male figure? That is a question which a man, naturally, cannot answer for himself. Still, there is a problem which presents itself to one. In the interests of science and of morality, I ask for information.