BY HENRY IRVING.

What is the difference between an English and an American audience?

That is a question which has frequently been put to me, and which I

have always found it difficult to answer. The points of dissimilarity

are simply those arising from people of a common origin living under

conditions often widely different. It is, therefore, only possible for

me to indicate such traits in the bearing of the American playgoer as

have come under my own personal notice, and impressed me with a sense

of unfamiliarity.

Every American town, great or small, has—I believe, without

exception—its theatre and its church, and when a new town is about to

be built, the sites for a place of amusement and a place of worship are

invariably those first selected. As an instance, take Pullman, which

lies some sixteen miles from Chicago, pleasantly situated on the banks

of the Calumet Lake. The original design of this little city, which is

almost ideal in its organization, and has the enviable reputation of

being absolutely perfect in its sanitation, was conceived on the lines

just mentioned. Denver City, which is a growth almost abnormal even in

an age and country of abnormal progress, has a theatre, which is said

to be one of the finest in America. Boston, with its old civilization,

boasts seventeen theatres, or buildings in which plays are given; New

York possesses no less than twenty-eight regular theatres, besides a

host of smaller ones; and Chicago, whose very foundations are younger

than the beards of some men of thirty, has, according to a printed

list, over twenty theatres, all of which seem to flourish. The number

of theatres in America and the influence they exercise constitute

important elements in the national life. This great multiplication of

dramatic possibilities renders it necessary to take a very wide and

general view, if one wishes to get a distinct impression as to how

audiences here differ from those at home. So at least it must seem to a

player, who can only find comparison possible when points of difference

suggest themselves. For a proper understanding of such difference in

audiences, we must ascertain wherein consist the differences of the

theatres which they frequent, both in architectural construction,

social arrangement, and that habit of management which is a natural

growth.

By the enactments of the various States regulating the structure and

conduct of places of amusement, full provision for the comfort and

safety of the audience is insisted on. It is directed that the back

of the auditorium should open by adequate doors directly upon the main

passage or vestibule, and that through the centre of the floor should

run an aisle right down to the orchestra rail. Thus the floor of the

house is easy of access and exit, is generally of large expanse, and

capable of containing half, or more than half, of the entire audience.

It is usually divided into two parts—the orchestra or parquet, and the

orchestra or parquet circle—the latter being a zone running around the

former and covered by the projection of the first gallery. The floor

of an American theatre is, as a rule, on a more inclined plane than is

customary in English theatres, and there is a good view of the stage

from every part. Outside the parquet circle, and within the inner wall

of the building, is usually a wide passage where many persons can

stand. Thus in most houses there is a great elasticity in the holding

power, which at times adds not a little to the managerial success.

I cannot but think that in several respects we have much to learn

from our American cousins in the construction and arrangement of the

auditorium of the theatre; on the other hand, they might study with

advantage our equipment behind the proscenium.

It is perhaps due to the sentiment and tradition of personal equality

in the nation, that the entire stream often turns to one portion of

the house, in a way somewhat odd to those accustomed as we are in

England to the separating force of social grades. To the great majority

of persons, only one part of the theatre is eminently eligible, and

other portions are mainly sought when the floor is occupied. The very

willingness with which the public acquiesce in certain discomforts

or annoyances attendant on visiting the theatre, would seem to

show that the drama is an integral portion of their daily life. It

cannot be denied by any one cognizant of the working of American

theatres that there are certain facts or customs which must discount

enjoyment. Before a visitor is in a position to settle comfortably

to the reception of a play, he must, as a rule, experience many

inconveniences. In the first place he has in some States to submit to

the exactions of the ticket speculator or “scalper,” who, through

defective State laws, is generally able to buy tickets in bulk, and

to retail them at an exorbitant rate. I have known of instances where

tickets of the full value of three dollars were paid for by the public

at the average rate of ten or twelve dollars. Then, through the high

price of labor, which in most American institutions causes employers

to so dispose of their forces as to minimize service, the attendance

in the front of the house is, I am told, often inadequate. Were it not

for the orderly disposition and habit of the public, trained by the

custom of equal rights to stand, and move _en queue_, it would not be

possible to admit and seat the audience in the interval between the

opening of the doors and the commencement of the performance. Thus the

public are somewhat “hustled,” and from one cause or another too often

reach their seats after having endured much annoyance with a patient

submission which speaks volumes for their law-abiding nature; but which

must sorely disturb that reposeful spirit which the actor may consider

essential to a due enjoyment of the play.

Once in his seat the American playgoer does not, as a rule, leave it

until the performance is at an end. The percentage of persons who

move about during the _entr’acte_ is, when compared with that in

England, exceedingly small, and sinks into complete insignificance when

contrasted with the exodus to the _foyer_ customary in continental

theatres. In the equipment of the American theatre there is one

omission which will surprise us at home—that of the bar, or refreshment

room. In not a single theatre that I can call to mind in America have

I found provision made for drinking. It is not by any means that the

average playgoer is a teetotaler, but that, if he wishes or needs to

drink during the evening, he does it as he does during the hours of

his working life, and not as a necessary concomitant to the enjoyment

of his leisure hours. Two other things are noticeable: first, that the

audiences are sometimes very unpunctual, and to suit the audiences

the managers sometimes delay beginning. The audience depend on this

delay, and the consequence frequently is, that a first act is entirely

disturbed by their entry; secondly, that, after the play, it is a

custom, in a degree unknown in any European capital, to adjourn to

various restaurants for supper.

As the audience _en bloc_ remain seated, so the length of the

performance must be taken into account by managers; and commonly

two hours and a half is considered the maximum length to which a

performance should run, though I must say that we have at times

sinned by keeping our audiences seated until eleven o’clock, and it

has been even later. Of course in this branch of the subject must be

also considered the difficulty of reaching their homes experienced by

audiences in cities whose liberal arrangements of space, and absence

of cheap cabs, renders necessary a due regard to time. In matter of

duration, however, the audience is not to be trifled with or imposed

on. I have heard of a case in a city of Colorado where the manager of

a travelling company, on the last night of an engagement, in order to

catch a through train, hurried the ordinary performance of his play

into an hour and a half. When next the company were coming to the city

they were met _en route_, some fifty miles out, by the sheriff, who

warned them to pass on by some other way, as their coming was awaited

by a large section of the able-bodied male population armed with shot

guns. The company did not, I am informed, on that occasion visit the

city. I may here mention that in America the dramatic season lasts

about eight months—from the beginning of the “fall” in September till

the hot weather commences in April. During this period the theatres are

kept busy, as there are performances on the evenings of every week day,

and in the South and West on Sunday evening also, whilst matinées are

given every Saturday, and in a large number of cases every Wednesday.

In certain places even the afternoon of Sunday sees a performance.

It is a fact, somewhat amusing at first, that in nearly all towns of

comparatively minor importance the theatre is known as the Opera House.

I have dwelt on the external condition of the American audiences in

order to explain the condition antecedent to the actor’s appearance.

The differences between various audiences are so minute that some such

insight seems necessary to enable one to recognise and understand them.

An actor in the ordinary course of his work can only partially at best

realise such differences as there may be, much less attempt to state

them explicitly. His first experience before a strange audience is the

discovery whether or not he is _en rapport_ with them. This, however,

he can most surely feel, though he cannot always give a reason for the

feeling. As there is, in the occurrences of daily life, a conveyance

other than by words of meaning, of sentiment, or of understanding

between different individuals, so there is a carriage of mutual

understanding or reciprocity of sentiment between the stage and the

auditorium. The emotion which an actor may feel, or which his art may

empower him successfully to simulate, can be conveyed over the floats

in some way which neither actor nor audience may be able to explain;

and the reciprocation of such emotion can be as surely manifested by

the audience by more subtle and unconscious ways than overt applause or

otherwise. It must be remembered that the opportunities which I have

had of observing audiences have been almost entirely from my own stage.

Little facility of wider observation is afforded to a man who plays

seven performances each week and fills up most of the blank mornings

with rehearsal or travel. I only put forward what I feel or believe.

Such belief is based on the opportunities I have had of observation or

of following out the experience of others.

The dominant characteristic of the American audience seems to be

impartiality. They do not sit in judgment, resenting as positive

offences lack of power to convey meanings or divergence of

interpretation of particular character or scene. I understand that

when they do not like a performance they simply go away, so that at

the close of the evening the silence of a deserted house gives to the

management a verdict more potent than audible condemnation. This does

not apply to questions of morals, which can be, and are, as quickly

judged here as elsewhere. On this subject I give entirely the evidence

of others, for it has been my good fortune to see our audiences seated

till the final falling of the curtain. Again, there is a kindly

feeling on the part of the audience towards the actor as an individual,

especially if he be not a complete stranger, which is, I presume,

a part of that recognition of individuality which is so striking a

characteristic in American life and customs. Many an actor draws

habitually a portion of his audience, not in consequence of artistic

merit, not from capacity to arouse or excite emotion, but simply

because there is something in his personality which they like. This

spirit forcibly reminds me of the story told of the manager of one of

the old “Circuits,” who gave as a reason for the continued engagement

of an impossibly bad actor, that “he was kind to his mother.” The

thorough enjoyment of the audience is another point to be noticed. Not

only are they quick to understand and appreciate, but there seems to be

a genuine pleasure in the expression of approval. American audiences

are not surpassed in quickness and completeness of comprehension by any

that I have yet seen, and no actor need fear to make his strongest or

his most subtle effort, for such is sure to receive instant and full

acknowledgment at their hands.

There is little more than this to be said of the American audience.

But short though the record is, the impression upon the player himself

is profound and abiding. To describe what one sees and hears over the

footlights is infinitely easier than to convey an idea of the mental

disposition and feeling of the spectators. The house is ample and

comfortable, and the audience is well-disposed to be pleased. Ladies

and gentlemen alike are mostly in morning dress, distinguished in

appearance, and guided in every respect by a refined decorum. The

sight is generally picturesque. Even in winter flowers abound, and the

majority of ladies have bouquets either carried in the hand or fastened

on the shoulder or corsage. At matinée performances especially, where

the larger proportion of the audience is composed of ladies, the

effect is not less pleasing to the olfactory senses than to the eye.

Courteous, patient, enthusiastic, the American audience is worthy of

any effort which the actor can make on its behalf, and he who has had

experience of them would be an untrustworthy chronicler if he failed,

or even hesitated, to bear witness to their intelligence, their taste

and their generosity.—_Fortnightly Review._

Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art, April 1885 · 第 17 / 59 题