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.

All personality being elusive, it is difficult to determine from where the personality of this deft sketch comes,—the cast? the setting? the lines? the action? perhaps the author! One can be a little more certain where it goes. This will locate a purpose, hopefully the purpose. “The Undercurrent” audience senses the motive, “Life; not as a strange interlude of many excruciating acts, not as a morbid mundanity of an isolated act, but as mortal activity flavored with sympathy.” The spirit of pity is propagated. Not that it is unfortunate to be compelled to live but that no one should be compelled to live unfortunately. Briefer stated this suggests “the more abundant life for all.”

The playlet with its clamorous reception as the sketch supreme appears to be prophetic of:

1. Better interhuman relationships.

2. Social values in a mechanistic standardized age.

3. Changes in the Drama-Stage; New things in vaudeville, Western inroads upon “Broadway,” Conquest by the amateur.

SOME UNSURPASSED STUDENT IMPRESSIONS

In order to broaden the range of reaction, “The Undercurrent” was brought before the unsuspecting class in the Sociology of Histrionics. This course has as its objective the sociological study of the drama-stage. None of the class had heard of the play or its author. No effort was made to arouse enthusiasm or to laud its merits, in fact quite the reverse. Eliminating the preliminary description and the directions for characterization, the script was read once in a monotone. Without further information or class discussion each student was asked to write upon scratch paper his or her opinion, especially including adverse criticism. They were given to understand that their papers would not be read in class or have any bearing upon their grades. No indication disclosed what use might be made of these impressions. The results under these handicaps are quite startling. The following extracts were made without the students’ knowledge or permission.

The extremist of the class objected to the play as having no plot, a boresome foreign accent, a repulsive situation, a danger of tempting people to imitate that kind of life, better for children than adults, and that anyone who could appreciate such a play would have no capacity for good tragedy.

However the consensus of opinion of the class was quite different. One of the ladies felt, “The lesson taught by the play seemed to be the outstanding thing, the fact that the man was so wrong and yet could quote scripture to prove his point.... We can all easily become friends of the girl Annie, and pity her plight, especially when we know it is so true to life as we have heard of it. I do not like to bring the hardness and cruelty of life in its treatment of some people to everyone and as I have no better method to suggest—of bringing it before someone who might be able to help remedy the condition, I would not try to stop these plays. The characters are very vividly portrayed, particularly the father’s. When his lines were being read I suffered the reaction of wanting to stop them, to change it; I didn’t want to hear it any further without doing something to that man. For this type of play I think it very good.”

Quotations from other students follow:

“The play was suggestive of many things and many purposes.”

“The play emphasized the fact that real strict parents create in their children hate and fear instead of love for them.”

“It gives us an idea of the life one leads in a flat. The father was so cruel in his way of bringing up his children—they did not have a chance to speak for themselves. The social workers of the day can help children in such predicaments. It would also help children that have life easy and to appreciate the advantages they have.”

“It was written for amusement and also to show the good many are doing on the streets of large cities for the fallen people. The author had in mind to make the parents, who saw or read the play, pay more attention and spend more educating time with them.”

“Evidently the play is meant to bring out the fact that home environment and discipline has a great influence upon youth, and a home in which the young are so repressed, directed and curbed, the influence is liable to be a negative one.... The most difficult cases the social worker has to deal with are these.... The selfishness, strictness, blindness, and one-track-minds of parents are responsible for much of youthful delinquency and disgrace.”

“A problem play to teach the effect of home life and conditions on the child’s life and behavior. Introduces somewhat secondarily the work and place of the Morals Courts, which investigate the environment for the possible causes of crimes. Portrays living conditions of the ignorant and poverty-stricken class.... The play teaches its lesson.... An indirect method frequently is more successful than one whose purpose is known by all concerned.”

“Training a child in the way he should go may be a good proverb, but it is not a wise plan to scare children into lying and leaving home, associating with wrong companions and thus getting into trouble.... It’s a good play and many instances just like it occur nowadays.... The mother certainly realized what should be done.”

And lastly will be given the unedited report of one who seemed indifferent during the single reading of the play:

“The play was interesting. It portrayed or was typical of the life it portrayed; that is, the slums. I had a vivid picture of the house and clear impression of the father in his burly way. The characters were well written. It was a good “unwritten” character sketch. You could easily judge or tell what type of characters they were. The plot was very simple but I think incompleted. The play was well named. We should have more of those type of plays because so many people do not realize how some people do exist. Of course there are some who would refuse to believe it but then it wouldn’t do any harm for them to be informed. The type of play to have are those true to life. Too many plays do not acquaint us with actual life and we are disillusioned. The ‘ma’ and ‘pa’ type are so frequent in the foreign element of our country that it is astounding. I like the dialect because if we are at all broad we will run across people who speak as they spoke and we should be able to understand. Some people are bored by those plays. I think they lack appreciation.”