RENATE USMIANI

[Note: endnote #21 is missing from original text].

Roy Mitchell, Canadian pioneer of modernism in the theatre, has been largely ignored by Canadian theatre historians and publishers. Creative Theatre (1929), his summa, was republished in 1969 - in the United States. It is the purpose of this article to give an overview of Mitchell's innovative theoretical ideas (as expressed in his three books and numerous articles); of the early practical work at the Arts and Letters Club and at Hart House Theatre, which led to these ideas; and of the interrelationship between Mitchell's aesthetics of the theatre and his theosophist beliefs.

Roy Mitchell, pionnier du modernisme théâtral, demeure à peu près inconnu aux historiens de théâtre et aux libraires-éditeurs canadiens. Creative Theatre (1929), le summum de Mitchell, a été republié en 1969 - aux Etats-Unis. Cet article décrit brièvement les théories avant-gardistes de Mitchell; ses débuts pratiques à l'Arts and Letters Club et au Hart House Theatre qui aboutirent à ces théories; et les rapports entre son esthétique théâtrale et ses croyances théosophistes.

Following the publication of his major work, Creative Theatre, ¹ Roy Mitchell received an enthusiastic letter from his friend Claude Bragdon which stated in part: ' ... it seems to, me the most important and constructive book on theatre since Gordon Craig ... [but] you will have to wait for your appreciation: this is a book for and of the future.' ² Bragdon's prediction proved correct. Subsequent developments in theatre history, Canadian as well as American, have established the validity of Mitchell's ideas: the alternative theatre movement of the sixties and seventies, in particular, followed many of the principles of Mitchell's revolutionary theatre aesthetics - mostly in total ignorance of the fact that these 'original' and 'innovative' ideas had been formulated some fifty years earlier! The appreciation forseen by Bragdon has not materialized yet. This pioneer of modernism in the theatre and unique figure in Canadian theatre history has been all but forgotten here. In the United States, Creative Theatre was re-published in 1969, ³ with a foreword by Kelly Yeaton which describes it as 'the best book ever written about American [sic] theatre.' Mavor Moore has pointed out the absurdity of this neglect on the part of Canadian theatre historians, who worship at the shrine of canonized apostles of modernism such as Artaud, Guthrie, Brook and Grotowski, without realizing that 'Mitchell said it first.' ⁴ Moore concludes his article with the hope that 'Perhaps Canadians will rediscover him, now that forty years later he is safely dead, American, and in the eternal big time.'

To remedy the situation will be a large task indeed. It is the purpose of this article to make a move in the right direction by giving a brief overview of Mitchell's theoretical ideas on the theatre (mostly published in the United States) and of the early practical work (mostly done in Canada) which led to these ideas. In the process, I shall also try to demonstrate the fact that there exists a very close interrelationship between Mitchell's theatre aesthetics and his religious-philosophical views as a theosophist.

Reading Mitchell's work is a constant reminder of the religious origin of all theatre; it also evokes parallels of Herman Voaden and Bertram Brooker in Canada, of Paul Claudel and August Strindberg, and of all those others who drew dramatic inspiration from the inner sources of mysticism, rather than the external ones of physical experience. Mitchell himself was quite aware of the fact, and proud of it: 'Because I am a man of the theatre, should I not carry my ideas of Theosophy into the theatre?' ⁵ he once wrote. His friend Edward Mabley states that 'a preoccupation with mysticism and the occult was the mainspring of his life.' ⁶ Commenting on his untimely death in 1944, The Canadian Theosophist concludes its obituary by claiming that 'His whole life and work was Theosophical.' ⁷ Yet, his vision was totally practical. While working as artistic director of the dramatic corps at the Arts and Letters Club in Toronto, Mitchell explained his position, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as due to the fact that he was 'the best carpenter in the club'; this newspaper interview goes on to describe him as a man who 'can not only make a harmonious and artistic electrolier from a couple of dish pans, but can design a whole set and execute it, plan lighting effects and lay the wires, and drill amateurs to play with the ease and finish of an all-star cast.' ⁸

This dualism between the religious-visionary and practical aspects of his nature appears clearly in the conception of Creative Theatre. Religious terminology and biblical allusions abound in the chapter headings and sub-headings of Parts One and Two. Here are just a few examples: I. Miraculous Theatre. 1. The Miracle. 2. Paradosis, 4. The Confusion of Tongues; II. Art in Bondage. 1. The Apostle of Disunion, 6. The Lightning Money Changers; VI. Magic Restored. 2. The Living Presence, 4. Tendrils of the Spirit, 5. The Despised Leaven, 6. The Sodality. Part Three, on the other hand (chapters X - XVI) reflects practical, hands-on experience and experimentation. Chapter X treats the importance of training by apprenticeship, for actors as well as technical personnel; chapter XIV deals in the most specific terms with the problem of achieving full control of color through new combinations of lighting technology and reform in the art of stage setting; chapter XV discusses the need for stylized set pieces and practical approaches to the creation and use of such pieces. Altogether, Creative Theatre is both visionary and practical, and its relevance continues to the present day, as the following quote, a summary of Mitchell's 'ideal theatre', clearly demonstrates: 'Not a state theatre with its burden of high-salaried incompetents ... Not a civic theatre to be tossed about by politicians. Not a coterie theatre to be the vehicle of literati and esthetes. just a forthright, native, ingenuous, friendly theatre ... built in expectation that people may come to spend the evening ... may like to eat and possibly to dance after the play ...' ⁹ The theatre would also include exhibition spaces, lounges, workshops to train apprentices. A dream indeed - today as much as in 1929.

The dreamer himself was born in 1884 in Fort Gratiot, Michigan, of Canadian parents. His father was a bridge engineer for the Grand Trunk Railway. The family returned to Canada in 1886, and in 1889 settled in Toronto, where Roy attended school and the University of Toronto. Even before his graduation in 1906, he had become interested in comparative religion and mysticism, and he joined the Toronto Theosophic Society in 1909. Something of a Bohemian also, he started out as a journalist, working with a number of Canadian and American newspapers from coast to coast. Theatre had been a major interest from early childhood. It now became part of his journalistic activity, as well as the main occupation of his leisure time, as he involved himself with the little theatre movement in both countries. Back in Toronto, he found himself the driving force behind the theatrical activity of the Arts and Letters Club, founded in 1908. Dramatic dinner entertainment very quickly became a club tradition.¹⁰ The first such activity listed in the Club archives is Enoch Arden, 'a Tennyson-Strauss melodrama,' on 10 December 1910. Roy Mitchell is listed as the director of Pyramus and Thisbe, a contribution to the 1910 Christmas programme, and he subsequently became a highly imaginative 'Prankmeister,' producing sophisticated entertainment for special occasions. On 25 January 1911, he mounted a series of live 'Egyptian friezes' to complement a lecture given at the Club by an eminent Egyptologist. Very soon, he moved on to serious dramatic experimentation, beginning with a production of Maeterlinck's symbolist drama Interior, 29 April 1911. Under the leadership of Roy Mitchell, assisted by his brother Guy and such eminent Club members as Arthur Lismer and Lawren Harris, the Arts and Letters Players became the foremost group in Toronto's amateur theatre. Partly due to Mitchell's rebellion against the realistic style popular at the time, partly because of physical limitations, they adopted a highly stylized expressionistic style far in advance of other groups. Merrill Denison gives a lively account of the facilities at the time: 'Their theatre was the club room in the old Court House, their stage, 150 movable boxes placed at one end of the room. Each box was a healthy load for one person, and before each performance these boxes had to be ... carried up two long flights of stairs to the club room. There was no proscenium opening, no wings, no scenery. Lacking them, it was necessary to solve the problem of settings in a new way. Necessity forced the Players into the expressionist school of stage setting.' Again according to Denison, the lighting equipment often consisted of 'spot lights made with tin wash basins for reflectors, biscuit boxes and lengths of stove pipe to keep them from spilling ... Costumes, properties and settings were all made by the Players themselves or by other members of the Club.' ¹¹

Unlike other companies, the Arts and Letters Players had total freedom in their choice of plays, the only criterion being that they would not do productions of plays previously seen in Toronto. Thus, Mitchell was able to experiment with such highly sophisticated material as Maeterlinck's symbolist Interior, W.B. Yeats' Shadowy Waters (an American premiere), commedia dell'arte, and Rabindranath Tagore's The Post Office. On the occasion of the dedication of the Club's fireplace the Prankmeister came up with an elaborate ceremony, with music, poetry and dramatic scenes demonstrating the function of fire in different cultures: The Caveman (protection); Zoroaster (object of worship); Roman sentry (companionship); Norseman (hearth and home). The selection clearly reflects the director's interest in comparative religion and mythology.

In 1916 Mitchell went to New York to study stage design. He worked for a while as a stage manager on Broadway, and in 1917 became technical director of the Greenwich Village Theatre for its first season. One of his productions there was a revival of the Chester Mysteries. This production gave him an opportunity to put into effect many of his most cherished theories, as his introduction to the text attests: 'these plays require the simplest techniques and the rigid avoidance of any stage effects whatsoever ... the stage is set to suggest a church chancel. At the back is a tall stained glass window and in front of it an altar with candelabra and a bowl of lilies. The shepherds enter and sit on the dais in front of the altar. The curtain is up at the beginning and is not lowered during performance. In the places required by the plays and in the intervals between the plays there is plain-song for choir and organ.' ¹² Stylization was carried to the point of having the angel Gabriel appear in apple green flowing robes, with flaming hair, and carrying a lily. Mitchell later brought the Chester Mysteries to Hart House, where it became a regular, and popular, Festival Play for the Christmas season. The production largely followed the Greenwich Village model, with an 'astonishingly beautiful' stained glass window, eight feet in diameter, created by J.E.H. MacDonald.¹³

In 1918, Mitchell returned to Canada, working as Director of Motion Pictures for the Department of Information in Ottawa. In close touch with Vincent Massey, he had a good deal of input into the proposed new Hart House Theatre. When the theatre opened in 1919, Mitchell was appointed its first director. There was much jubilation among theatre lovers. 'Toronto is to have a little theatre! Toronto, this autumn, is to give birth to Canadian drama!' proclaimed the Star Weekly on 19 July; 'Roy Mitchell, the new director, showed us over the new theatre, swearing the while that there is nothing equal to it in the world... '. ¹⁴ It must have been a thrill indeed for him to find himself suddenly working in one of the best equipped theatres on the continent, for 'Mr. Massey had seen to it that the theatre possesses every device.' ¹⁵ He was particularly delighted with the possibilities offered by the fully up-to-date lighting equipment, enthusiastically described by Merrill Denison as follows: ' ... it is the lighting equipment which is truly extraordinary. There are only two or three theatres in America with as complete or as large a stage switchboard. It has more than sixty switches with an elaborate system of interlocking dimmers ... almost any grouping, variety and control in color is possible. There is a permanent cyclorama or sky cloth hung on rollers without which it would be impossible to obtain any feeling of depth or distance in outdoor settings.' ¹⁶ Mitchell was quick to seize on the potential of this new equipment, which he saw not only as a technical innovation, but as a means to create a totally new approach to theatre, a new, more poetic, stage convention: 'The power of lighting an area not only to the exclusion of, but to the contrasted darkening of another area means that we can move into a a fourth dimension ... our successive scenes may now all lie on the same stage ... instead of moving in time, our scenes exist all at once, and the movement is in space' ¹⁷ - a foreshadowing of Artaud's 'poetry in space.' Thus, Hart House theatre became the laboratory where he tested the ideas and techniques later described in Part Three of Creative Theatre. His amateur company was backed by a professional crew, while members of the Group of Seven frequently contributed stage design: Lawren Harris, Patelin and The New Sin; A.Y. Jackson, The Queen's Enemies, The Alchemist; Arthur Lismer, The Trojan Women; J.E.H. MacDonald, as mentioned earlier, The Chester Mysteries. ¹⁸ His future wife, artist Jocelyn Taylor, and his sister, Charity Mitchell, also formed part of the team, working in design, props and costumes.

The principles laid down for the choice of plays further helped to develop truly exciting seasons. The basic criterion was that no play done in Toronto before, or likely to be done in Toronto in the near future, was to be considered. Each season was to be made up of 'an Elizabethan piece in the original manner; a classic from a living language; a festival play unchanged from year to year; a modem prose drama; a modem poetic or decorative drama; a bill of three original plays; a double bill made up of two pieces from any period, so long as they are decorative.' ¹⁹ Mitchell had no difficulty in remaining within these guidelines, except for the original plays. Like everyone else, he had hoped the creation of Hart House Theatre would immediately lead to the creation of Canadian drama. However, Canadian playwrights failed to come forward as readily as had been anticipated, and in his first season, he found himself unable to fulfill the requirement of 'three original plays,' in spite of his occasionally drastic efforts in that direction.²⁰ Mitchell remained at Hart House for two seasons, after which he resigned following some disagreements with the Board of Syndics.

He went to New York with the intention of opening a theatre together with actress Josephine Victor, but his plans did not work out. The next two years were spent on the west coast of Canada, where he began to acquire a reputation as a lecturer for the Theosophical Society. Back in Toronto in 1925 he started work on Creative Theatre, engaged in study and research, involved himself actively with the Theosophical Society; he also accepted a post to teach scene design for the College of Art. In 1926, he married his long-time associate Jocelyn Taylor, and together they left for New York in 1927. He returned to Canada only sporadically after that date. Following three years of freelance writing, producing and lecturing, he was appointed to the Faculty of Dramatic Art at New York University, in charge of experimental dramatic work. One of his most successful contributions there grew out of the idea that acting should be developed out of dance and folk song. He therefore invented a system of notation that enabled his students to sing folk songs in any language. This eventually led to the formation of a widely acclaimed singing group, The Consort, which acquired a repertoire of 600 folk songs in 40 different languages and dialects.

Mitchell died suddenly on 27 July, 1944. Besides his voluminous contribution to journals, he left three books: Shakespeare for Community Players, Dutton, N.Y., 1919; The School Theatre, The Council for Education, New York, 1925; and Creative Theatre, 1929; John Day, The Kindle Press, 1969. His notebooks ²² show that he had planned three further volumes to follow upon Creative Theatre: Introduction to Acting, 'an application of the older psychological verities to the problems of the actor, the mime, the singer and the comedian'; Dramaturgy, 'The analogies and borrowings of theatre from the other arts. The application of standards of aesthetic judgment. The application of the psychology of attention to the continuum. The application of what is known as mass psychology'; and Theatre of the Mysteries of Life and Death, 'a statement of the spiritual power which theatre could attain as religion towards the awakening of the soul.' The last title clearly points to the close link between theatre and religion in Mitchell's mind.

Although his written work reflects his wide range of interests and visionary approach, it gives little indication of the dynamism he seems to have projected as a person a teacher and lecturer. Dudley Barr calls him 'a rare genius as a teacher.' ²³ He also possessed an imposing physique: 'a big man who moved about with surprising grace, he gave the impression of great physical strength and vitality. He had a large leonine head, a shock of rather long black hair, and penetrating black eyes. His voice was perfectly modulated.' ²⁴ His friend Edward Mabley refers to his 'Renaissance mind' and 'encyclopedic knowledge.' The notebooks certainly reveal an inexhaustible intellectual curiosity, a well-ordered and highly organized method of proceeding, and a holistic approach. Partly due to his theosophic beliefs, he was constantly searching for interrelationships between widely divergent religious and philosophical systems, and integrating these into his own evolving philosophy of life, art and the theatre. There are some highly illuminating examples of his methodology among the notebooks. In a scrapbook based on Plotinus' essay On The Beautiful, each page of Plotinus is faced by a blank page for his own comments and digressions; he owned a carefully interleaved copy of Walt Whitman, filled with his reflections on the poems and their application to theatre aesthetics; one entire notebook is devoted to 'Interrelations' among Shakespeare, Carlyle, Celtic traditional sayings, Bergson, Plato and William James. He amassed 397 pages of 'collectanea' from the religions and philosophies of the world - 75 pages of compilations on 'the soul' alone. A 140-page selection of Mitchell's 'collectanea' is now available in a collection of his essays, The Exile of the Soul, published in 1983. ²⁵ Each one of the three parts of Creative Theatre is prefaced by a relevant parable of Oriental wisdom.

The same humanistic approach is evident in his more mundane pursuits. A great lover of country living and country lore, he compiled a notebook, In Praise of Country Living, made up of passages from Theocritus to Whitman. Other notebooks and essays are devoted to topics such as Garden and Orchard and Calendar of the Seasons; even a Cookbook (complete with the inevitable compilations such as herbs and kitchen needs) was not below the dignity of this truly Renaissance man.

First and foremost, however, Mitchell was a man of the theatre. His theories were developed mainly on the basis of his own experimentations and reflection. However, certain influences are quite obvious, most important, Gordon Craig, whom he admired greatly, ²⁶ and François Copeau, whose revolutionary stage at Le Vieux Colombier he mentions repeatedly. For influential earlier writers and critics, we have only to go to the list he himself has left in one of his notebooks, a list which includes Diderot, Goethe, Appia, Dalcroze, Evreinoff, Rolland, Samson, Dantchenko, Castelvetro, Savitz, Irvine, Nietzsche, Wyspianski, Ibsen, Heves. To these eclectic literary influences we must add the impact of the experimental theatre activity going on all around him at the time. The 20's and 30's were indeed the age of the little theatres in America, the Provincetown Players perhaps the most influential through their association with O'Neill. In his own country, unfortunately, Mitchell remained a voice crying in the wilderness, even more so than his contemporary Herman Voaden, whose work is being given belated recognition now and who alone has acknowledged the influence of Mitchell on his work.²⁷

The theatrical creed of Roy Mitchell, prophet and visionary, can be summed up, very roughly, in five major points:

1. A true member of the Modernist movement, Mitchell started out with a total rejection of all previous conventions of contemporary theatre, 'this cemetery arrangement ... fit only for the wrecker,' ²⁸ as he once wrote. He also attacked the commercialism of American theatre with a vengeance. In Creative Theatre, he elaborates on this point in particular in chapters two and four, which carry sub-headings such as 'The Pyramid of Greedy Men,' 'Profit-Taking,' 'The Twin Agents,' 'The Art of Cheapening,' and 'The Greasy Counterfeit.'

2. 'Motion' seen as the essential art of the theatre. This view derives from the concept of theatre as an independent art form, and not, as previously seen, a 'handmaiden of literature.' ²⁹ Like Artaud and his later disciples, Mitchell felt that the relative importance assigned to the word, or script, must be greatly decreased in order to release the full magic of theatre, which depends more on motion and plasticity of stage image - Artaud's 'poetry in space.' According to Mitchell, the word should do no more than explain and perhaps expound on, the movement of the actors in space. A good playwright will see his work in these plastic terms, and realize that his most important contribution may well be the 'silent space' between words.³⁰ This view has since been applied by the practitioners of the Theatre of the Absurd (Beckett comes to mind immediately), of the théâtre du quotidien (Vinaver's use of 'blancs') and - to a different purpose, of hyperrealism (Kroetz says: 'the most important action of my characters is their silence'). ³¹

3. A view of theatre as a communal, creative, and active, rather than passive, experience. Here Mitchell comes close to the indignation of the young Brecht at the passivity engendered in society by the media. He passionately believed in the little theatre movement, which he saw as a potential redeeming force in the modem world. In The School Theatre, he traces this communal involvement back to the Greeks and deplores its loss by the Romans (ritual becomes show). He calls for a renewal, for theatre to become, 'not just recreation ... but a creative force in the community.' ³²

4. In his ideas on staging, Mitchell foreshadows the experiments carried out by the alternative theatre groups of America, Europe and Canada in the 1960's and 1970's. He rejects traditional theatre space in favor of absolute flexibility: let the players adapt to whatever space becomes available - thus, he heavily endorses our concept of 'found space.' He also emphasizes the principle of poor theatre, linked with the name of Grotowski; Mitchell has called it 'The Art of Doing Without' ³³ and elevated what originates as a restriction to a positive aeshetic principle. Instead of illusion and fake surface realism, he advocates stylized, multi-level, reusable set pieces, with lighting the major element in the creation of artistic effect. Mitchell even foresaw the dangers of official funding and warned against the temptation to set up conventional, 'regular' theatres.

5. Emphasis on the audience as the focal point of all theatre activity, and the idea that the audience should not be separated, physically or otherwise, from the acting area. This was clearly achieved in the Chester Mysteries. He condemns the voyeurism of the picture frame stage, which destroys the magic of true theatre, for 'consummation of theatre is with the audience,' as he writes in chapter six of Creative Theatre. His treatises on acting invariably focus on the relationship between the energy projected by the actor and the flow of energy back from the audience.

A similar, brief summary of Mitchell's theosophic ideology will easily lead to a demonstration of the parallelism between the two areas, and their mutual interdependence. First, however, an understanding of the basic principles of theosophism is needed to appreciate Mitchell's particular position.³⁴

Originating in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, theosophy developed into a mystical religious movement which combines Eastern and Western elements (Brahmaism, Buddhism, Greek philosophy, Christianity), belief in a universal symbolism, and study of occult phenomena. An American Theosophical Society was founded in New York in 1875; an autonomous group followed in Toronto in 1891. In Canada, an independent Society was organized in 1919, and Mitchell was elected to the first national executive. In its first year of publication, the Society's journal, The Canadian Theosophist, defined the movement as follows: 'Theosophy is at once a Philosophy, a Science, and an Art. As Philosophy, it gives the general principles that govern "The Great Becoming", relations between us and the Universe, between us and Heart and Cause of the Universe; as Science, it deals with Universal Laws, Consciousness, Energy, Powers and Forces, and with the evolution of the infinity of Forms which embody Infinite Being. As Art, it is Wisdom, practical endeavor to express in one's life Wisdom and Will of that Being which is the Heart and Cause of the Universe'. ³⁵ The mixture of Platonic idealism and Oriental mysticism is apparent in the definition. The article goes on to claim that Theosophism can be traced to the earliest ages of man, preceding all organized religions, which originate with certain 'teachers' sent out from time to time by the brotherhood - teachers such as the Buddha, or Christ. Several key concepts are given: Theosophy posits the existence of an 'Omniscient, Boundless, Eternal and Immutable Essence, inconceivable and undescribable.' The Universe has its essence in this Absolute Reality. However, while the Soul of the Universe is immutable, its embodiment in Nature is forever changing. This implies that the universe in which we live is but one of an infinite series, just as the body we inhabit is one of a long series of incarnations, since 'every being pursues an obligatory pilgrimage through all Nature's kingdoms.' As a manifestation of the Universal soul, each individual soul is identical with it. Within the Universe, a dual Law reigns supreme: Cyclic law (periodicity) and Karmic law (causality). As Universal Soul infuses all the Universe, the concept of 'inorganic matter' is denied; everything in the Universe is both living and conscious.

The ethics of Theosophy is based on Meditation (to learn the Divine Will) and Action (to carry It out). The article idealistically claims that Theosophy 'supplements the desire to do good, present in all of us, and shows us how.'

This brief description of Theosophy does not mention certain key elements, such as Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine, the concern with the occult, number and other symbolism, and the varied paths of mysticism, all of which were matters of great interest to Roy Mitchell. From his own writings, certain personal key beliefs and concerns clearly emerge. The most striking element is his remarkable liberalism: While he constantly advocates reading and study, he vigorously opposes the 'single book' theory. ³⁶ Instead, he feels that all revelations, from primitive myths to organized world religion, should be scrutinized with an open mind. We should not expect to find answers in books, although they may lead us to answers; nor should we look to revelations of truth from speakers. The truth lies within us and can only be discovered within our own souls, for 'God manifests himself in man and every man is potential God.' ³⁷ Thus, Mitchell constantly warns against the threat of sectarianism and doctrinaire attitudes.

Key concepts in his own version of the Theosophist approach are the idea of a universal brotherhood of man, and the brotherhood of all living beings: his much attested love of animals clearly illustrates the latter. Although interested in the occult, he believed in a rational and scientific explanation of all such phenomena, which he felt needed a great deal more serious study. His attitude on this point is quite clear: 'there are no miracles', as he categorically states.³⁸

This rationalistic approach to the universe does not preclude a profound mysticism, however. He firmly believed in the existence of a 'higher' soul in man,³⁹ and the close link between this soul and artistic expression.

In this belief, of course, lies the point of convergence between his theories on theatre and his religious views. Art must strive to give expression to that higher soul within man which, in theatre, is threatened by commercialism, overorganization, bureaucracy, the star system and, above all, a shallow surface realism. In The Creative Spirit of Art ⁴⁰ he attempts to prove that all artistic creativity has its source 'in one fundamental idea, an idea which can be found in LaoTze, Buddha, the early Christian tradition, the Pythagoreans, Plato, the Arabian philosophers of the medieval period ... [namely that] in man there is a whole range of powers that he never could have acquired on this earth.' With his characteristic liberalism, he concedes that it is immaterial how that source of Power is defined, the concept of a Heavenly Father being as good as Emerson's Oversoul or Plato's realm of Ideas. The important thing is to recognize the duality of all being, and for the artist 'to take his stand in that higher identity.' In relation to theatre, this means an attempt to show the 'essential' aspects of life, rather than surface realism. It is Mitchell's philosophical foundation for his theories of stylization in stage setting; the 'new expressionism.' ⁴¹

As for theatre architecture, Mitchell felt that, at its best, it would recreate for the audience the same sense of communal experience and divine presence they normally expect only in a church. In one of his many thunderings against the 'picture frame house,' he states that theatre could, and indeed should, cater to 'the constantly recurring mood in man when, to realize an ideal or to embody it, he is prompted to create a house of a living presence where one could imagine something divine manifesting itself among men ... the theatre is the inheritor of an old and powerful magic. With more confidence, it could essay to create a Presence.' ⁴² Here we have Mitchell at his most idealistic and visionary, thinking of theatre in the future. But even in his writings on the little theatre, or community theatre, the connection with his religious ideas is apparent, in spite of his often eminently practical approach.

The concept of the importance of communal experience appears in both his religious work and his work on the theatre: in fact, it is central to both. Mitchell sees spirituality itself as dependent on communal experience. He defines spirituality as a current of divine energy within the soul of man; but for this current to occur, there must be a flowing out as well as a flowing in - movement from the Divine Spirit to the individual soul, and from the individual soul out into the community. Mitchell does not consider spirituality in isolation possible, any more than the experience of theatre is possible for an individual in isolation. As mentioned earlier, he considers the audience essential, as theatre consists in that mystical experience which can arise only out of the near-miraculous flow of energies, the 'swirl of forces,' between the stage and the house. In the first chapter of Creative Theatre, Mitchell emphasizes that the central theatrical factor consists in 'a fourth dimension, inextricably bound up in the fact of the magical presence of the persons for whom the play was made.' He believes that theatre possesses the power to produce for the audience the revelation, or paradosis, and initiation, of the ancient mysteries: 'I offer the theory of a fourth world into which the theatre can initiate its devotees,' and he speaks of the actor as 'a kind of priest, ... celebrant of a mystery which is the theatre's own.' However, the experience must be a communal one, since the individual cannot enter by himself into the higher realm of the mind. With this statement, we are back at the definition of spirituality, showing once again that Mitchell's religious thinking lies at the base of his theatrical thinking. Even the concept of sacrament is carried over. In the religious sense, Mitchell defines as sacramental any human action which is performed in the right spirit; the man who lives according to the Divine Will will unwittingly create a "force" which draws weaker spirits into the 'swirl' of his mind.⁴³ Similarly, the actor at his best produces a ,swirl of force'which compels attention and communicates itself to fellow actors and audience⁴⁴- another example of the flow of Divine energy.⁴⁵

Finally, even Mitchell's vigorous campaign against a commercial theatre with its greed motive and bureaucratic organization has a counterpart in his approach to the Theosophic society. In theatre as in religion, he advocates dedicated amateurism as the only corruption-free way to proceed. In his articles in The Canadian Theosophist, he repeatedly warns against the dangers of losing sight of the ideals of the movement through an overemphasis on the concerns of an individual Society.⁴⁶ And just as he uses religious terminology to discuss theatre, he does not hesitate to use theatre terms in his religious writings. He takes a stem stand against the proliferation of bureaucracy and the practice of paying for services, or giving fees to speakers: 'We are a community of laymen, taking our stand firmly as fine amateurs in religion and satisfying the world that we have no other motive but truth, ... [we] could transform all the grubby little upper rooms in which we meet into temples of God.' ⁴⁷ It is exactly the same plea we find throughout Mitchell's writings on the theatre: the plea for a poor theatre, a theatre of austerity, imagination, freedom - a theatre that is anything but 'regular' or conventional. The experience of recent years has amply bom out the legitimacy of his concerns, as we have been able to observe the frequently negative effects of subsidization, bureaucratization and commercialism in Canadian regional theatres and Art Centres.

It would be interesting to see how Mitchell actually translated his often mystical, theoretical concepts - 'sacrament,' 'celebration,' 'revelation,' ,magic,' 'invisible motion,' 'vortex,' 'swirl of forces' - into the practical realities of the theatre. For translate them he did, with unfailing enthusiasm. Mitchell was, first and foremost, a down-to-earth, hands-on practitioner of his art, who took an active part in every aspect of production. At Hart House, he was considered a 'technical' director, as opposed to his successor, Bertram Forsythe, an 'actors' director.' Given the ephemeral nature of the medium, we can only obtain a very approximate idea of what his productions actually looked like. A limited number of sources is available: the woodblock illustrations in Creative Theatre, executed by Jocelyn Taylor Mitchell; J.E.H. MacDonald's diagrams in Shakespeare for Community Players, photographs of models; some production pictures; and of course reviews of productions. A sampling of reviews, along with the illustrations provided, should give the reader at least some insight into this all-important aspect of Mitchell's work. Photographs of the period, of course, tend to be faded, and reviewers have an unfortunate habit of dwelling upon the literary qualities of the play and the perfort-nance of the actors, rather than on the contribution of the director and the effectiveness of the staging.

At the Arts and Letters Club, his first serious production, Maeterlinck's Interior, left no doubt in the viewers'mind as to his intentions: 'Mr. Mitchell ... is merely testing the Club's ability to produce from time to time plays which are otherwise inaccessible,' wrote The Lamps commentator on the production.⁴⁸ However, the same article clearly reveals the director's success in conveying the mood of the play. As a prelude, a procession of peasants created the necessary realistic anchoring, while 'the profound allegory' of the play was conveyed by imagery: the family facing the garden, away from the direction whence their destiny approaches; the third window of the cottage, a 'Cyclopean eye of spiritual intuition.' The reviewer was made equally aware of the theosophic undertones of both play and production, as he commented that 'it is to Boehmen, Ruysbrook and Novalis that one must go for the key that will unlock the mystery...'. Another particularly impressive performance seems to have been a double bill of Synge's The Shadow of the Glen and Lady Gregory's The Workhouse Ward. Again, Mitchell chose to set the tone of the evening by a prelude, this time, a set of four Irish folk songs performed by Mr. Redferne Hollingshead. The production was simple and stylized. As reported in the Club Program, ⁴⁹ 'the decorative method was used throughout,' and 'an effort made to interpret the spirit of the plays rather than give museum representations of Irish interiors.' These were 'stylized settings irrespective of photographic details.' The Shadow of the Glen, lit only by four candles, must have been especially impressive.

Hart House reviews unanimously emphasize the 'beauty' of the sets, sometimes in a manner that appears naive to today's reader, but which should make us aware of the innovation Mitchell wrought in his capacity as artistic director. Here, for example, is a review of the Hart House Alchemist of 1920: ⁵⁰ So far, the most perfect parts of their productions have been the stage pictures, invariably beautiful in color and simple and effective in drawing ... the main act was striking in a decorative way, one soonforgave the sacrifice of realism to beauty.' The Japanese tragedy Matsuo also drew rave reviews. It is described as having been 'presented in Japanese classical manner, with broad scenic effects and intense posturing.' Designed by Arthur Lismer, the Japanese screens gave a beautiful silhouette during the fade-out.' ⁵¹

Mitchell's major innovation at Hart House, of course, was his imaginative use of the complex lighting equipment at his disposal, to create novel effects of shape and texture by the play of lights upon specially prepared surfaces. He has often pointed out that he considers light the key to the theatrical style of the future. Judging by audience response, his viewers were duly impressed. Following the premiere of Alcestis on 8 February, 1921, the (unsigned) Toronto Mail and Empire review bears this QUADRUPLE headline:

ALCESTIS ACTED BY PLAYERS CLUB
Greek Drama at Hart House Theatre Delights the Eye
MOBILE COLOURS USED
Impressive Performance of Dramatic Poem Given by Good Cast

The fact that the reviewer refers to the performance as a 'dramatic poem,' rather than a play, already gives an idea of the effect created:

'An interesting experiment in staging has been made in this production by Director Roy Mitchell. He has used a blue backdrop, against which stands a semicircle of Grecian pillars. These pillars are in reality screens of a neutral shade, and the effects are secured by flooding them with different colored lighting ... the general effect is one of exquisitely tinted pillars, making a striking background for the carefully grouped tableaux.' ⁵²

The Varsity reviewer was similarly impressed: Under the heading 'New Lighting Effect introduced for the First Time,' ⁵³ he gives unconditional praise to the performance, which involved the largest cast yet seen at Hart House. The set, designed by Merrill Denison, is described as 'simple, but unusually effective,' and again the use of lighting is emphasized: 'In the prologue, a single light makes the figure of Apollo stand out clearly while death moves about as a shadow ... The scene is indeed enough to make one shudder.' In reviewing the first two seasons of Hart House Theatre for The Canadian Bookman, Merrill Denison calls the director 'the leading force in the little theatre movement in Toronto' and again singles out his technical achievements, in particular, the Chester Mysteries and Alcestis. 'The first use in America of Appia neutral coloured screens with color applied through the light, instead of with paint, was made in Alcestis, with results that showed great possibilities for ... this technique.' ⁵⁴ Clearly, the innovative combination of stylization and lighting effects was Mitchell's most outstanding contribution. From its first application in Alcestis, the technique was carried on to other productions. As The Varsity reports,

'In The Romancers the next step in the new technique development will be when relief on the surfaces of neutral screens will be secured by the use of metallic appliqué. In this way, the range and gradation of color will be greatly increased. The honey-combed surfaces will be used also more extensively for getting lighting effects. The Cymbeline setting will be of the same construction, only a larger number of elements will be used to obtain the desired effects. It is planned to project ornaments and outlines upon the screens and in this way novel effects will be obtained. ⁵⁵

These reviews clearly demonstrate the excitement which Mitchell was able to generate as he applied the latest technology to achieve the 'Magic' and 'Presence' he considered the essence of theatre. However, he did not necessarily rely on sophisticated equipment to create his effect. He was perfectly at home in improvised spaces, and with makeshift equipment. When he felt it called for, he would exercise the utmost restraint.

These few examples should give some idea of Mitchell's early work on stage in Canada, and of audience reactions. As to the reception of his theoretical works, it has not at all followed the pattern foreseen by his contemporary admirers. Claude Bragdon may have considered Creative Theatre a book 'of and for the future,' but the fact is that its significance seems to have been appreciated by contemporary theatre critics, while later generations allowed it to fall into oblivion. His early work, Shakespeare for Community Players, was received with great acclaim, possibly because it dealt with the right subject at the right time: interest in little theatre ran high in 1919. Even the prestigious Literary Supplement of the New York Times responded most positively: 'Through every word of detail runs Mr. Mitchell's sense of purpose for which the thing is done; and if the professional producers always kept in mind the ideas on which Mr. Mitchell writes, ... the stage would be a more artistic affair than it is!' ⁵⁶ it seems to have been immediately obvious that Shakespeare for Community Players was much more than a specialized book on that subject, but rather an impassioned argument for community theatre itself. The Canadian Bookman showed clear insight into Mitchell's purpose and motivation. An article of December 1920, points to the author's very 'special attitude' and the fact that he is 'thoroughly imbued with a sense of the importance of the theatrical arts to the community (it is no exaggeration to say that he conceives of it as a form of religion).' As for Creative Theatre, in spite of the 'shallowness of the reviews' which Bragdon deplores, ⁵⁷ it appears that the book was generally well received and categorized as an important contribution in the field. Theatre Arts Monthly gave it a rave review, under the heading 'Superlatives for Two'; ⁵⁸ supported by extensive quotes from the book, the reviewer sums it up as 'probably the most invigorating and vitalizing iconoclasm the subject affords.' The New York Times Book Review endorsed the work with reservations. The reviewer implies a certain 'naïveté in the author, but does grant him full familiarity with both the theatre he condemns and the theatre he envisions for the future. In summary, the review states that the book 'should prove interesting to actors, students and playwrights ... [and] may create an audience.' ⁵⁹ The Saturday Review found the book 'pedantic.' An anonymous review in The Toronto Star ⁶⁰ picks up that particular criticism, and also blames Mitchell for his excessively theoretical approach, when he could have made the book more accessible by basing it on his rich personal experience; nevertheless, the Toronto reviewer goes on to describe Creative Theatre as 'a splendid document - a work of ideals, visions, ideas, hope, optimism - and academic analysis.' He also predicts the obvious, namely, that the work is bound to be ignored by Broadway producers.

Contrary to the expectations of contemporaries, Mitchell's books have failed to obtain recognition 'in the future,' in spite of the fact that so many of his groundbreaking ideas have been implemented since he first formulated them. Canadian theatre history, of course, is a young discipline, just discovering the vastness of the field that has lain unexplored for so long. Perhaps it is time to realize that a history of theatre criticism and theory must go side by side with the more factual recording of play writing and play production. As a theorist of the theatre, Roy Mitchell merits serious study. His books deserve Canadian, not just American, reeditions, and a place on the syllabiof our university courses in Canadian studies, Canadian literature, and most important, Canadian theatre history.
 

Notes

ROY MITCHELL: PROPHET IN OUR PAST

[Note: endnote #21 is missing from original text].

Renate Usmiani

1 ROY MITCHELL Creative Theatre New York: John Day 1929; New York: Kindle Press 1969
Return to article

2 CLAUDE BRAGDON 'Dear Roy ... 'letter dated 22 Dec 1929 Mitchell Papers York Univ Archives
Return to article

3 Creative Theatre New York: Kindle Press 1969. All quotations are based on this edition
Return to article

4 MAVOR MOORE 'Little-known giant of the theatre was one of our own,' Globe and Mail 27 Oct 1984 p 53
Return to article

5 ROY MITCHELL 'Purity,' The Canadian Theosophist vol V no 4 (15 April 1924) p 18
Return to article

6 EDWARD MABLEY, unnumbered 'Foreword' to 1969 ed of Creative Theatre
Return to article

7 D.W. BARR 'In Memory of Roy Mitchell,' The Canadian Theosophist, vol XXV no 6 (15 Aug 1944)
Return to article

8 ESTELLE M. KERR 'The New Theatre Movement,' The Courier 23 Sept 1916
Return to article

9 Creative Theatre p 124
Return to article

10 Archival records show the information given in ROBERT SCOTT'S MA Thesis, 'A Study of Amateur Theatre in Toronto: 1900-1930' UNB 1966, to be incomplete
Return to article

11 MERRILL DENISON 'The Arts and Letters Players,' Canadian Bookman Feb 1983 p 31
Return to article

12 ROY MITCHELL 'Introduction,' The Chester Mysteries Greenwich Village Theatre 10 Dec 1917
Return to article

13 A.F. COVENTRY 'The Technical Work of a Little Theatre,' Canadian Forum March 1923
Return to article

14 'G.C.' 'Toronto to have little theatre,' The Star Weekly 19 July 1919
Return to article

15 Anon 'The Work of Hart House,' Canadian Bookman Dec 1920 pp 30-31
Return to article

16 MERRILL DENISON 'Hart House Theatre,' Canadian Bookman March 1923
Return to article

17 ROY MITCHELL 'Towards a New Scene Convention,' The American Magazine of Art nd, pp, 29ff Mitchell Papers, York Univ Archives
Return to article

18 CF note 13
Return to article

19 CF note 15
Return to article

20 An anecdote vouched for by Herman Voaden has it that he once locked Merrill Denison in a room, threatening not to release him until he had completed a one-act play
Return to article

21 His letter of resignation mentions 'declared changes in the policy of the club.' It is dated 24 March 1921. Hart House Archives, Univ of Toronto
Return to article

22 Mitchell Papers, York Univ
Return to article

23 DUDLEY BARR 'Foreword,' The Exile of the Soul ed John Davenport Calgary: Blavatsky Institute of Canada 1983
Return to article

24 EDWARD MABLEY 'Foreword,' Creative Theatre
Return to article

25 Cf note 23
Return to article

26 He frequently refers to Craig as a model. On 12 Feb 1914 he delivered a lecture with lantern slides on 'The Art of Gordon Craig' at the Arts and Letters Club
Return to article

27 Cf ANTON WAGNER 'Herman Voaden's Symphonic Expressionism' Ph D Thesis Univ of Toronto 1984 ch 1
Return to article

28 Cf note 17 pp 31-32
Return to article

29 'Roy Mitchell Speaks,' report on a lecture given at Hart House, The Varsity 26 Jan 1938
Return to article

30 ROY MITCHELL 'Motion' Theatre Arts Monthly vol XIII no 1 (Jan 1929) pp 33-39
Return to article

31 FRANZ XAVER KROETZ 'Introduction,' Farmyard and Other Plays New York: Urizen Books n d, p 8
Return to article

32 ROY MITCHELL The School Theatre p 11
Return to article

33 Unpublished article, Mitchell Papers. In Shakespeare for Community Players he concludes the chapter on 'Costume' with the pithy advice, 'When in doubt/Leave out'
Return to article

34 Linked to the name of Boehme, Ruysdal and Swedenborg, the movement proved attractive to a number of Romantic writers including Novalis and Goethe. MICHELLE LACOMBE'S 'Theosophy and the Canadian Idealist Tradition: A Preliminary Exploration' Journal of Canadian Studies 17 Summer 1982 pp 100-118 is a useful account of theosophy in Canada
Return to article

35 Anon 'Theosophy,' The Canadian Theosophist vol I no 4 (15 June 1920)
Return to article

36 ROY MITCHELL 'Study,' The Canadian Theosophist vol IV no 7 (15 Sept 1923) pp 99-101
Return to article

37 ROY MITCHELL 'Speakers,' The Canadian Theosophist vol IV no 8 (15 Oct 1923) p 113
Return to article

38 Lead article, The Canadian Theosophist vol I no 5 (15 July 1920)
Return to article

39 This belief constitutes the main thesis of The Exile of the Soul
Return to article

40 Lecture given in Philadelphia (1932) pub by Kindle Press Westwood NJ, 1969
Return to article

41 Creative Theatre p 229
Return to article

42 ROY MITCHELL 'The House of Presence' Theatre Arts Monthly vol XIV no 5 (1929) pp 575 ff
Return to article

43 ROY MITCHELL 'Sacraments' The Canadian Theosophist vol III no 1 (15 March 1921) p 15
Return to article

44 Cf ROY MITCHELL 'Motion and the Actor' Theatre Arts Monthly vol XIV no 4 (March 1929) p 300
Return to article

45 All of the preceding refutes ANTON WAGNER'S statement that Mitchell 'unfortunately never discussed his religious-philosophical beliefs in relation to the theatre' (Thesis p 5)
Return to article

46 Cf note 43
Return to article

47 ROY MITCHELL 'Amateurs' The Canadian Theosophist vol V no 1 (15 March 1923) pp 4-6
Return to article

48 Anon, no title, The Lamps 29 April 1911
Return to article

49 Arts and Letters Club program 16 March, 10 April 1915 Arts and Letters File, Metro Toronto Library
Return to article

50 Anon 'Players Club Give Interesting Performance at Hart House,' The Mail 9 March 1920
Return to article

51 Anon 'Players Club Presentation Scores Huge Success: Unusual Visual Effects,' The Vanity 8 Nov 1920
Return to article

52 The Mail and Empire 10 Feb 1921
Return to article

53 Anon The Varsity 9 Feb 1921
Return to article

54 MERRILL DENISON 'Hart House Theatre' Canadian Bookman March 1923
Return to article

55 The Varsity 23 Feb 1921
Return to article

56 The Varsity 17 March 1920
Return to article

57 Cf note 2
Return to article

58 EDITH J.R. ISAACS 'Superlatives for Two' Theatre Arts Monthly 12 Dec 1929; includes review of SHELDON CHENEY's 3000 Years of Drama, Acting and Stagecraft pp 940-43
Return to article

59 ROSALIND IVAN 'Looking to the Future of the Theatre' New York Times Book Review 22 Dec 1929 p 84
Return to article

60 Toronto Star 28 Dec 1929
Return to article