34. Theatrical Scandal

The unpleasant way in which the audience expressed its displeasure with Halbe's "Conqueror" at the Lessing Theatre on October 29 prompted the commendable director of the Schiller Theatre, Dr. Löwenfeld, to give a lecture on "Theatre Scandal" at the Berlin "Freie Literarische Gesellschaft". The content of this interesting lecture will be outlined here. Dr. Löwenfeld began by emphasizing that the scandal during the performance of Halbe's "Conqueror" differed significantly from other similar events. The behavior of the audience in the evening was preceded by a journalistic rally. The "Kleine Journal" published an article on the morning of the day of the performance in which the mood was stirred up against the management of the theater. The financial situation of the theater, the business and artistic management were presented in the most hateful way in this article. And in the evening, the noisy rejection followed.

Dr. Löwenfeld went on to describe how the appreciative theater audience views its critical task quite differently from the audience of another art. The theater director can do nothing other than offer the audience the best of the existing works of art. Of course, this best need not be the absolute good. But the theater director can't just conjure this absolute good out of thin air. In this respect, he can do nothing more than the director of a magazine or the director of an art exhibition. They too cannot help but offer the best of what is available to them.

The public has certain considerations to make. Firstly, to the poet. They should at least let him present his work before passing judgment. Secondly, to the actor. It should not interfere with him doing his best to show the poet to his best advantage. If it is as it was on October 29 in the Lessing Theater, the actor cannot possibly complete his task. The audience should also take the neighbor into consideration. What would we say if someone in an art exhibition held their hand in front of a painting while we were looking at it? But that's what someone does when he makes a noise in the theater next to someone else who wants to enjoy a quiet performance. Finally, the audience has aesthetic duties. A work of art can only be enjoyed as a whole. Anyone who judges before the end of the performance sins against this duty.

The purpose of a visit to the theater must also be considered. This is not the criticism of a dramatic poem, but the entertainment or enjoyment of a work of art.

Following on from this, Dr. Löwenfeld raised the very legitimate question of whether the usual premiere audience is at all suitable for such criticism. This audience is by no means made up of those elements who, due to their intellectual heights, appear qualified to make an authoritative judgment. Dr. Löwenfeld believes that much mischief is done at premieres by giving out free tickets to the uninvited. He cited a case from his practice. On the occasion of his performance of "The Robbers", he did not give a free ticket to a man who at least had a reputation in literary circles. This man would have made jokes about the inevitable imperfections of the performance. As a theater director, Löwenfeld didn't want that. Because such jokes, spoken with the necessary loudness in the theater, have an infectious effect.

Dr. Löwenfeld also highlighted a cancer of press criticism. The daily newspapers have one, perhaps two theater critics who are up to the task. One can now experience the following. There are four premieres in one day. One at the Schauspielhaus, one at the Deutsches Theater; two at theaters that live only on wild business manipulations and deliver subordinate performances. The famous critics go to the Schauspielhaus and the Deutsches Theater; the so-called "chic boys" go to the subordinate theaters. The next day one reads serious reviews of the Schauspielhaus and the Deutsches Theater in a style that meets the demands that one is entitled to make of serious art institutions. Of course, some things are criticized, and the tenor of the review is such that the criticism of the Schauspielhaus and the Deutsches Theater appears to be derogatory in comparison to the glorifying remarks of a fancy boy about a theater that has nothing at all to do with art. What kind of picture is the foreigner who comes to Berlin supposed to form from the reviews printed side by side? He says to himself: the plays at the Schauspielhaus are mediocre; there's nothing really going on at the Deutsches Theater either: that's why I go to the Friedrich-Wilhelmstädtisches Theater. Everything is excellent there. Dr. Löwenfeld stresses that the newspapers have a duty to create change here.

This interesting lecture was followed by a discussion. The undersigned opened it. He pointed out that there is a kind of rejection of a drama that is absolutely fatal for it, but which therefore has nothing in common with the repulsive behavior of the audience on October 29 in the Lessing Theater. He recalls a performance that the Goethe Assembly organized in Weimar a few years ago. Paul Heyse's "Bad Brothers" was performed. The audience, which had come together from all parts of Germany, felt bored and bored beyond measure. There was no hissing, hooting or jeering. After each act and after the last, the curtain came down in silent silence. The audience left the theater in silence. The play was buried. The audience had pronounced a death sentence, but in the awareness of the responsibility one assumes when one condemns a real work of art to death. The audience was not aware of this responsibility towards Halbe's "Conqueror". The silent rejection, however, seems noble to me. I also had to say that I do not believe that Halbe's drama was buried on Saturday, October 29. But when I read the Tageskritik on Sunday morning, I gave up everything. The Berlin Tageskritik doesn't know that it has a duty to hold back with its own opinion at first and tell people: this is what the poet wants, go in and form your own judgment. Instead it says: the play will not make money, so stay away. That's what she said on October 30th. The people stayed away. And the play could not be performed for the third time. Hans Olden then defended the audience at length. It had always rewarded artistic achievements with applause. Hauptmann had not misjudged it. Dr. Landau explained that what mattered most in the theater was the effect. It was impossible to wait until the end of the last act to express the effect a play had on the audience. Laughter is first and foremost a necessary expression of the psychic organism, and nothing can be done about that. Dr. Lorenz left the subject altogether. He said that Halbe's drama challenges laughter. That's why people laughed. Felix Lehmann made a good suggestion. He is of the opinion that the first real performance should be organized in front of an invited audience - according to the Parisian model. Such an audience will have the manners it should have. He hit the nail on the head, however, and what he said was like an egg to the resolution that the board of the "Freie Literarische Gesellschaft" wanted to propose. The kind of premiere audience that Felix Lehmann proposes for a first performance is what we want. Nothing else.