sztukę p. t. “The Undercurrent,” napisaną przez Panią Fay Ehlert, żonę
Konsula tego kraju do Chile. Sztuka ta jest napisaną na tle życia
ubogiego stróża, mieszkającego w suterynie wraz z rodziną.
Sztuka “The Undercurrent” spotkała się z wielu trudnościami i
przeszkodami, zanim dostała się na scenę. Wiadomem jest, jak nieraz
autor, bardzo utalentowany, pisze, pracuje z zaparciem siebie, wykończa
swoje dzieło w najlepszej myśli, w najlepszej wierze—i w końcu spotyka
się z zawodem, z trudnościami różnemi, zanim jego dzieło jest przyjęte
przez któregoś z dyrektorów teatralnych. Taki też los spotkał i Panią
Ehlert, która wszystkie siły swego talentu wytężała i pracowała nad
wykończeniem swej sztuki. Wiele by trzeba było poświęcić czesu, aby
opisać, jakie trudności miała Pani Ehlert, aby zwrócić uwagę któregoś z
impresarjów teatralnych na swą sztukę. Chodziła od jednego do drugiego
dyrektora i wszędzie spotykała się z odmową. Nie dała jednak za wygraną.
Wierząc mocno w gruntowną wartość swej pracy, swego dzieła—dopięła celu.
Na sztukę jej zwrócił uwagę jeden ze znawców, ocenił ją i wystawił na
scenie.
Gdy pierwszy raz sztuka była odegrana, wywołała ona wielki entuzjazm
wśród publiczności.—Wszyscy dyrektorzy, którzy przedtem odmówili,
zauważyli, że popełnili wielki błąd i z żalem przyznali, że istotnie “The
Undercurrent” jest dziełem artystycznem w swym rodzaju, którego oni nie
umieli wpierw ocenić.
Dobitnym dowodem zainteresowania się publiczności tą sztuką jest fakt,
że była ona grana od Kalifornji do New Yorku w pierwszorzędnych teatrach
około ośmset razy.
Z końcem tego tygodnia, to jest we czwartek, piątek i sobotę, sztuka ta
jest wystawiana w teatrze Gaiety.
—_Maria G. Gomolska_ in _Słowo Polskie_,
April 19, 1929.
HAIL THE PERFECT SKETCH!
Our humble genuflexions to its author, and a thousand thanks on behalf of
all interested in the furtherance of the sketch in vaudeville to R-K-O
for heaping upon it the distinction of booking it into the Palace and the
choicest of its stands thruout the country. There may be better one-act
plays, but we haven’t seen them in vaudeville yet. The time may come;
real soon, we hope, if the big-time executives can be made to see that
vaudeville sorely needs sketches with even an iota of the merit of Mrs.
Ehlert’s brain child. In trade terms she has brought forth a Christ. As
it winds its way thru the various sections of the country it will preach
its mission, and who knows but at the end of its trail word will come of
converts to the Great Cause. With “The Undercurrent” swinging along—and
there’s no reason why it should not keep up its energetic pace for a
long, long time—the case for the dramatic sketch will be kept alive. Let
the protagonists of this form of vaudeville entertainment heat their iron
while the fire is hot.
Mrs. Ehlert’s playlet is a paradox of homeliness and beauty, combining
these qualities in a homogeneous mass as it was permitted Abe Lincoln
to do. Its drabness is not cheap and sensational. It points no lucid
moral. Like those literary vignettes lately grown popular it presents to
us a moving, compelling slice of real-life action. It is left for the
spectator to draw his conclusions. Whatever they may be there are few of
normal intelligence who will not react emotionally and intellectually to
the problem presented by the plotless plot.
We are introduced to a janitor’s hovel in the basement of an apartment
building. We see the bull-headed, ignorant father going thru the routine
of an evening in what he calls home. There is the warped, beaten and
loving mother; her dull, bullied son and the wayward daughter. A
slatternly neighbor comes into the scene and thru her we are introduced
into various angles of the family’s existence. Then enters a social
worker. The human drama is on. It burns with its frankness and compels
with its character drawing. We are made to see that the father, beaten
into a senseless bully by his own progenitor, is in turn deluded into
thinking that he is successful in beating doubtless virtue into his
offspring. The girl is by nature a good girl, but her father’s bullying
has driven her into the streets, and thence into the morals court. The
janitor prides himself on the hair-trigger control he possesses over
his children, but to those less blinded by their own ego the boy hates
him worse than rat poison, and the girl is fast being pushed to ruin.
The social worker is evidently on the scene in the nick of time, this
being incidentally the only vestige of a plot in the playlet. The father
is about to learn of his daughter’s police record from the blabbering
tongue of the neighbor when the lady of the upper strata concocts an
alibi and saves the girl from a volley of welts and punches. Miss Social
Worker takes the girl away from the cesspool—for good. As they are
leaving the janitor asks that he be informed if the girl gives her future
guardian trouble. Miss Social Worker’s parting shot, “You’d be a great
help!” brings down the curtain.
We’ve said enough about the play. As for the cast, it is overwhelming
in its fitness. The bright and particular star, from our angle, is
Harriet Allyn. In her Ma Fishyer role she puts over a piece of character
portrayal that hasn’t been approached at the Palace since Lucille LaVerne
fried bacon in Sun Up. It won’t be long before the money boys nab her.
Curt Benisch, as Pa Fishyer, also gives a sensational performance. He’s
a tabloid of Gregory Ratoff—and to us that means as good as they come.
Gladys Pfeffer appeals mightily as the daughter, as does Charles White
as the son. In her brief bits Florence Thompson does a corking job of
the neighbor role. Margaret Moore was the least bit stiff in the social
worker’s part, but she’s excused on the ground that she’s a late addition
to the cast. Reception here went to six curtain calls and a show stop.
—_Elias E. Sugarman_ in _The Billboard_,
February 2, 1929.
SUPERBILL OF VAUDEVILLE ON AT THE PALACE
Despite handicaps well-nigh unsurmountable, “The Undercurrent,” a
one-act play by Fay Ehlert of Chicago, not only made good at the Palace
yesterday afternoon, but scored so decisively with the hard-boiled
initial matinee audience of experienced vaudeville-goers as to leap to a
headline position on an extraordinarily good bill—and that Palace Sunday
matinee audience is seldom stampeded by anybody. Beatrice Lillie, for
example, couldn’t get under its crust, nor Willie Collier, nor Florence
Reed, and if President Coolidge and King George should hook up as a
dancing team, they’d have to dance as well as Bill Robinson to get by.
The handicaps “The Undercurrent” faced are these:
(1) It originated in a “little theatre,” and good comes as seldom out of
the “little theatre” as out of Nazareth;
(2) it won first prize in a Chicago “little theatre” tournament, the
Edith Rockefeller McCormick cup, than which nothing would seem to spell
surer damnation;
(3) it is presented by the same group of Evanston “little theatre” actors
who played it originally, a handicap to be overcome only by a miracle.
The Orpheum circuit of experienced amusement purveyors felt all these
things so poignantly as to be constrained to offer an apology for giving
it a place on the hill—“encouragement of home talent,” “civic pride,” or
something like that.
But “The Undercurrent” came through the ordeal with flying colors—and
despite another handicap probably rectified by now, namely: the players,
used to small halls, pitched their voices so low they were nearly lost in
the vastness of the Palace auditorium.
“The Undercurrent” is a tense story of sordid tenement life—a sort of
an echo of “John Ferguson,” but not so much so as to rob Mrs. Ehlert
of the glory of an original plot. This plot has to do with a stern,
Bible-reading, iron-willed janitor who has brought up his children
in the way they should go, and whose daughter, escaping the stern
discipline of the home, becomes a street walker. The episode pictured
is the attempt of the daughter, her mother, and a social worker to keep
the God-fearing janitor from finding out what his daughter has done. The
plot is skillfully constructed, tense and explosive, and the acting is
astonishingly good.
There is no severer test for a dramatic sketch than the song and dance
atmosphere of a vaudeville show, and “The Undercurrent” demonstrated
yesterday that it is at least three times as good as it must have seemed
in the “little theatre” tournament at the Goodman Theatre.
—_C. J. Bulliet_ in _Chicago Evening Post_,
June 25, 1928.
Mrs. Ehlert’s play shows searchingly how a bigoted foreign father brings
ruin upon the happiness of his family by warping justice into injustice
through his fanatical method of administering it. It is a tense drama
packed with interest from start to finish.
The cast, the same that won the contest, is playing it at the Palace and
giving an exceptionally fine performance, particularly C. Russell Small
as the father, and Harriet Allyn as the mother. Excellent also are Gladys
Pfeffer, Charles White, Ethel R. Swift and Helen Sanford. Over half a
dozen curtain calls attested to that fact that an unusual offering such
as this is a good piece of commercial “theatre” also.
—_Fritz Blocki_ in _Chicago Evening American_,
Tuesday, June 26, 1928.
“It’s an excellent one-acter, sharp, sure, unexpectedly effective.”
—_Robert Garland_ in _The New York Telegram_,
January 22, 1929.
“This drama, which is sponsored by the Radio-Keith-Albee corporation, is
an exceptionally fine contribution to the Vaudeville stage and far above
the average sketch. A capable cast interpreted the roles.”
—_Julius Cohen_ in _Journal of Commerce_,
January, 22 1929.
“THE UNDERCURRENT” ACTED AT THE PALACE
Chicago Little Theatre Prize Winning Play is Realistic
“It is written sincerely and observantly, and tells its not overburdening
story with effective simplicity.”
—_John Byram_ in _The New York Times_,
January 21, 1929.
“The author has captured the brutal atmosphere of a family in which the
father, a janitor, believes that his children can be made to love him by
continued mental and physical floggings, and has arranged the whole in a
few deft situations.”
—_New York Herald-Tribune_,
January 22, 1929.
RADIO-KEITH-ORPHEUM PALACE TRACK
Winners at a glance.
1—“The Undercurrent”
2—Barry & Whitlege
3—Webb & Hay
“It has been a long time since a sketch has been as well received at this
track as was “The Undercurrent” last Monday night. The fans received it
like money from home. Which proves that when a sketch is what it should
be, it will be as well received as any other act.... This sketch would be
good for a route, for it will play equally well anywhere.”
—_Paul Sweinhart_ in _Zit’s_,
January 26, 1929.
MANHATTAN MADNESS
“To get good sketches for vaudeville is difficult, for to tell a story in
15 minutes, a complete story with a dramatic climax and coherent plot,
gripping from beginning to end, requires exceedingly great skill. But
this is what Mrs. Fay Ehlert has accomplished in “The Undercurrent,”
at the Palace Theatre, after seven months’ touring over R-K-O time....
Editorial comment has been showered on this terse little drama and it
never fails to grip each audience and cause tremendous applause.”
—_Robert Coleman_ in _Daily Mirror_,
New York, N. Y., Monday, January 21, 1929.
NOBLE
Our Noble Prize award for today: To Mrs. Fay Ehlert, authoress of “The
Undercurrent,” the Chicago Little Theater prize-winning skit, now a
feature of the Palace bill closing today, for its inherent entertaining
merits.
—_Ohio State Journal_,
Columbus, November 28, 1928.
PALACE
“The Undercurrent,” by Fay Ehlert, winner of the Edith Rockefeller
McCormick cup in the recent Little Theatre contest, was presented in the
four-spot. The play deals with a wayward daughter, Bible-reading father
from the old country, social worker from the morals court, gossip and a
brow-beaten mother and son. Whole family very much in awe of the stern
father of the “old school,” with the little skit packing a tremendous
wallop and holding the breaths of the house straight through from start
to finish.”
—_Variety_,
June 27, 1928.
“The Undercurrent,” prize-winning play of the Chicago Little Theatre
tournament, was in third position, and upon conclusion took nine
curtains, none of which were begged. Harriett Allyn as a janitor’s wife,
Curt Benisch as her husband, and Florence Thompson as a neighbor,
brought to this arty dramatic sketch a talent which made it outstanding
and an act to be remembered.”
—_Inside Facts of Stage and Screen_,
Los Angeles, Saturday, Oct. 13, 1928.
AT THE PALACE
“Occupying an important spot at the Palace this week is a sketch
straightly dramatic and singularly different from the general run of
sketches.... A hideous cruel picture that Mrs. Ehlert has drawn with
no small amount of skill.... An extraordinarily sincere and effective
one-act play.”
—_Jeffery Holmesdale_ in _The World_,
New York, January 22, 1929.
AT THE PALACE
“This observer, who has sat and squirmed through many a dull playlet
on the Orpheum boards, found himself (with the rest of the audience)
vigorously applauding a one-acter that has not a laugh in it.... It is
heavily tragic, but so truly written and ably performed that it gripped
the attention of an audience that had expected the worst. The cast took
six curtain calls, an amazing thing for unknown players in an unknown
playlet. The play comes to New York after a similar success over the
whole R-K-O route, and if Vaudeville’s new moguls have any lingering
doubts that Palace audiences will appreciate worthy sketches, the
reception to Mrs. Ehlert’s work should clear their minds.”
—_Carl Helm_ in _The New York Sun_,
January 22, 1929.
PLAYLET AIDS PALACE BILL
Clever Sketch Tops Offering
“If you can be thrilled by as perfectly written and presented a one-act
playlet as has ever been offered to a Vaudeville audience, the Palace
Theatre, where Fay Ehlert’s “The Undercurrent” is one of the chief
offerings on an excellent program, is the spot for that type of reaction
this week.... For its first New York showing the Palace Theatre was
selected. The Palace has many times shown a restlessness during dramatic
acts of this type. Sunday afternoon that same audience seemed to sit
spellbound. Mrs. Ehlert has not only shown herself a word-character
painter of ability, but she has also proved her adeptness in staging a
playlet which she has done herself.”
—_H. David Strauss_ in _The Morning Telegraph_,
January 21, 1929.
LETTERS
LETTERS
GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN’S CLUBS
1928-1930
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE
MRS. SAIDIE ORR-DUNBAR, CHAIRMAN
310 FITZPATRICK BLOCK, PORTLAND, OREG.
Division of Correction
MISS JULIA K. JAFFRAY, CHAIRMAN
730 FIFTH AVE., NEW YORK, N. Y.
PRESIDENT
MRS. JOHN F. SIPPEL
307 ST. DUNSTAN’S ROAD, HOMELAND
BALTIMORE, MD.
GENERAL HEADQUARTERS
1734 N STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
MRS. VALENTINE B. FISHER
707 TWELFTH STREET, BOULDER, COLO.
MRS. B. F. WESTMORE
716 OLD NATIONAL BANK BLDG., SPOKANE, WASH.
May 13, 1929.
MY DEAR MRS. EHLERT:
May I congratulate you most heartily upon “The Undercurrent” which I saw
last Saturday night. It shows a very keen insight into “things as they
are”—everyone meaning well, everyone blundering and all grieving that a
young girl is going wrong.
Not since Jean Webster in “Daddy Long Legs” interpreted the treatment
generally accorded to orphans have I seen as faithful and striking a
picture of the well-meaning forces which wreck young lives.
I understand that the play is now available for amateurs and will do all
in my power to induce women’s clubs to present it. The results will be
telling!
Can’t you take little Annie to a Woman’s Reformatory and in picturing her
life there show those of us dealing with reformatory problems where we
are falling short?
Every good wish for continued success.
Cordially yours,
JULIA K. JAFFRAY
Chairman
NEW YORK STATE FEDERATION OF WOMEN’S CLUBS
MRS. CHARLES, J. REEDER, President
956 State Street, Carthage, N. Y.
MEMBERSHIP 400,000
ORGANIZED 1894
Department of Fine Arts
Division of Drama
MRS. EDMUND GALE JEWETT
266 Washington Ave. Brooklyn, N. Y.
MY DEAR MRS. EHLERT,
I must congratulate you on your remarkable little play, “The
Undercurrent.”
I saw it one afternoon recently and was so impressed by its unusualness
that I wanted my husband to see it with me, so I saw it again last night
with him. He felt about it just as I did.
What a story it tells in that short time! The characters are so sharply
drawn. It is splendidly played. The effect on the audience was positively
electric last night.
Audiences and their reactions are always of great interest to me. It
seems a real feat for you to have gotten this play into Vaudeville—and
yet how wise of Vaudeville.
I believe amateurs could give “The Undercurrent” with satisfaction.
It is a great little playlet, my dear Mrs. Ehlert. May it continue long
on its brilliantly successful way.
Most sincerely,
(Mrs. Edmund Gale) EUGENIE JEWETT
Chairman Division Drama,
Department Fine Arts,
N.Y.S.F.W.C.
May the eleventh, 1929.
March 12, 1929.
Mrs. Fay Ehlert,
Authoress, “The Undercurrent,”
The Roosevelt,
New York City.
DEAR MRS. EHLERT:
An urge impells me to say something regarding your play, “The
Undercurrent.” It is no inclination for flattery. It is not an ambition
to produce a sales-talk. This would be quite unnecessary since the
public is “sold” on your play. Nor are my remarks designed as an
advertising testimonial, stereotyped for renumeration. Most certainly,
you have received a multitude of voluntary comments which are highly
complimentary. Since I represent another field I will leave the critics
concern themselves with the dramaturgical art of the play. Had I the
time I would enjoy making a sociological study and analysis. By way of
substitution I am enclosing “Some Sociological Reflections” which are for
your encouragement. You may use them as you see fit.
Yours in appreciation,
HARRY F. WEBER,
Professor, Sociology of Histrionics.
SOME SOCIOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS UPON FAY EHLERT’S “THE UNDERCURRENT”
By Dr. H. F. Weber, Prof. Sociology of Histrionics, Albright College,
Myerstown, Pa.
Having an obsession for the sociological side of the drama-stage, I
recently went to the theatre to estimate this alert (Ehlert) play called
by the treacherous title, “The Undercurrent.” This current dragged me
into a janitor’s basement room where I eddied helplessly in a whirl of
life. Like the scoffer I staid to pray. Once I resisted the tow in an
effort to ascertain the effect upon the audience but their dazzling,
steady gaze stageward overcame me. This tabloid drama had blossomed into
the universality of life. Back in the basement I remained until a kind
curtain disenchanted me. My notebook was blank. It is easy to realize
why I speak of reflections rather than judgments, since my thoughts
came after rather than with the presentation. Yet I did not forfeit my
sensibilities even though my mind was in the play rather than upon it.
“In the basement” I experienced several splendid and pleasant surprises:
1. The difference between my reading of the script and seeing
the play.
2. That a play could be so “really real” and yet contain so
much idealism.
3. That such a situation did not turn out to be a burlesque
upon squalid life.
4. That the pornographic suggestion did not become obscene.
5. That so much of life could be concentrated into so small a
space and time.
6. That a play not written with a problematic motive could
touch upon so many social problems.
7. That the broken English dialogue could be made
understandable throughout.
8. That so serious a play would be taken so seriously by the
Vaudeville audience and so appropriate a part of the program.
The title was correct. Society does have its undercurrent which drags
down helpless victims against their own efforts. The “plotless plot”
reveals still other paradoxes:
1. Severe Sincerity.
2. Homely Beauty.
3. White Lie Truthfulness.
4. Cesspool Home.
5. Bitter Righteousness.
6. Forced Love.
7. Harsh Charity.
8. Homeward Waywardness.
9. Hereditary Environment.
10. Superior Inferiority.
11. American Immigrant.
The lesson-seekers as reformers, ministers, judges, educators,
social workers, parents, sexologists, humanitarianists, eugenicists,
euthenicists, and mere conversationalists can find innumerable “morals”
hovering about each one of the characters of the play:
1. The thick-headed, self-centered, sincere, father;
Domination of father, Harsh idealism from ancestors,
Puritanism, Relation of parent to offspring, The immigrant in
America, Old World views in the New World.
2. The long-suffering, helpless, warped, beaten, loving mother;
Mother love, Dominated Womanhood, Equality of the sexes.
3. The dull, bullied, shut-in, son;
Stifled personality, crushed individuality, Child guidance,
Repression, The right to be well born, Child labor.
4. The good, wayward daughter;
The Revolt of Youth, Social vice, Fallen women, Double standard
of morals, Conditions of working girls, Drawing power of
mother love, Influence of associates.
5. The nosey, spiteful, slatternly neighbor;
Intruding, meddling neighbors, jealousy, gossip, Keeping up
(down) with the Joneses, “Flat ethics and etiquette.”
6. The court investigating, social worker;
Usefulness and necessity of the social worker, Solving cases
of maladjustment, The milk of human kindness, Probation for
innocent offenders, Not letter but spirit of the law, Not rules
but common sense, Uncharitable charity.
7. The family in general;
How the other half lives, Appreciation for blessings,
Over-strict home life, Depressing slum environment, Ignorance,
Poverty, Unemployment, Living wage, Standard of living, Equal
opportunity, Ossification of society, The melting pot,—
But I must cease this vivisection or the play will be played out. It
must not be torn into such small bits. Let it suffice to say that there
is something in it for everyone and he who listens can hear between
the lines. The play’s value cannot be measured by the response from
the chairs. “The Undercurrent” grips. The audience when scattered will
remember it long after the best vaudeville joke is forgotten. The
longer the memory the “gripper” the Undercurrent. The blighted home
depicted will help to soften the atmosphere of the audient’s own home,
which heretofore however slight may have been tainted unwittingly by an
undercurrent.
Perhaps then, the little masterpiece, in vaudeville called a sketch,
does have a purpose. A discovery of it will have more sociological
significance than for play-building technique. In the restricted sense of
the latter there is no author’s “moral.” It does not present propaganda.
Yet the vaudeville audience is bound to carry away a meaning.
Harlow in his “Growth of United States” writes, “Perfectly simple ideas,
boldly stated and constantly reiterated, if given wide circulation, no
matter whether they are truth or falsehood, have a powerful fascination
for the majority of mankind.” Just as the vaudeville stage is the feeder
for all branches of amusement the vaudeville audience represents the
most varied cross-section of society, and permeates itself through it.
The vaudevillean by his “catch-phrases and wise-cracks” determines
many social attitudes for his clients across the foot-lights. They, in
turn picking up these “cleverisms,” pass them on to their fellowmen as
illuminating truths (modern proverbs).
It certainly must mean the elevation of social standards when “The
Undercurrent” gets a hearing. It has a personality—when this human drama
is on it corrals the emotions by its characterization, frankness, and
reality. Like the best personalities it is contagious, makes others
wish to hover near it, imitate it, admire it. In spite of proffering
no solution to the many problems which it suggests, the audience goes
away with the resolution that things must go better in the future. Out
of the despair of this effective simple story arises hope. Although
little ratiocination there will be contemplation. Perhaps few will be
transformed into saints but many will become more human.