PRIMARY in the theatre ever since its emergence from ritualistic
dances has been the play. It gives the basic content to the theatre
production, and determines--within certain limits which will be noted
later--its shape.

It is true that in some periods plays have been secondary to produc-
tions. In the post-Attic period in Greece, after the great fifth century
B.C., actors took precedence over playwrights; the virtuosity of the
former excelled the achievements of the latter. The triumphs of
commedia dell' arte lay in the field of acting. The Kembles, Booths,
Keans, and their fellow performers stood in shining contrast to the
mediocrities who provided them with new plays. For over twenty years
during the post-revolutionary period in Russia, the Soviet theatre's
directors and scene designers have overshadowed the dramatists. Other
examples will occur to the student. Nevertheless, this merely means
that the actors had to make valiant attempts to overcome the short-
comings of their playwrights. If the scripts had been better the pro-
ductions would have been more gratifying. Good productions of
poor drama rarely deceive the discriminating audience as to the merits
of the latter. Moreover, it is noteworthy that in all such periods most
successful productions were revivals of older and better plays. Where
this was not so, the reason is to be sought in the special taste of the
period that made it accept pinchbeck as the genuine article.

There have been instances when a production transformed the
content of the play. The director Orson Welles turned Julius Caesar
into an anti-fascist drama, and the romantic Shoemaker's Holiday into
a naturalistic comedy and a paean to democracy. The Soviet director
Meyerhold altered the content of many a classic to gratify the interests

-12-