Chapter II: Part 2

The little play’s worth lies in that there is in many, many homes, some taint of the immorally “moral” atmosphere which blighted the home which the drama depicts. Generally, happily, this taint is slight, but it is, nevertheless, a thing that may have dreadful consequences. To have the fact called to attention is good for the soul.

Mrs. Ehlert’s little masterpiece undoubtedly has sweetened the atmosphere of many a home.

—Editorial in _Wyoming State Tribune_,
October 26, 1928.

HOPE FOR THE THEATRE

The work which the “Little Theatres” of the country are doing can best be judged by the prize-winning play of the Chicago Little Theatre Tournament, which is on the bill at Keith’s Memorial Theatre this week. This play, “The Undercurrent,” written by Fay Ehlert, has had a remarkable success.

It is neither sensational nor flamboyant, but a burning human drama, 20 minutes of thrilling suspense with a touching climax. There is a real hope for the legitimate drama when a vaudeville house makes a play like this one a feature of the bill.

—Editorial in _The Boston Post_,
Monday, March 25, 1929.

WHAT ONE WOMAN DID

When Mrs. Fay Ehlert brought “The Undercurrent” to Broadway a few weeks ago, she proved that she had the courage of her convictions. So also did the bookers—for playlets had not been in such good standing in major vaudeville. In fact, there had been evinced a general disinclination to book playlets of any kind, with special reference, of course, to those of a serious nature. However, the critics upon reviewing “The Undercurrent” during its run at the New York Palace were so enthusiastic that there no longer was any doubt as to the way in which this particular play in little was regarded by the critical fraternity and by those who do not always agree with it—that is, our theatregoers. The bookers also showed what they thought of the whole proceeding by freely routing the playlet into the larger houses of the East.

What particularly interested dramatic authors, however, was the fact that “The Undercurrent” brought back, in some degree at least, the vogue of the playlet, although, of course in the final analysis, the quality of the dramalets presented by other writers must be the deciding element in the decision as to the future of the playlet in vaudeville. At any rate, the clever Mrs. Ehlert must be given credit for having written a serious, one might almost say, sombre playlet so filled with the various essentials of living and with characterizations so skillfully and effectively drawn that she has turned the eyes of the critical in the direction of a form of entertainment which had so long been unhonored and unsung, and which seems at last to be coming into its own again. In other words, it does not really seem to be a question of whether the public wants serious playlets but of whether other scripts can be found that contain the elements of humanity and the struggle against the fates as shown so effectively and sympathetically in “The Undercurrent.”

Fay Ehlert may be regarded somewhat as a female Christopher Columbus, who has charted new seas and sailed into port with colors flying.

—Editorial in _The Vaudeville News and New York Star_,
March 16, 1929.

“THE UNDERCURRENT”

Thousands who saw and heard “The Undercurrent” at the Orpheum last week were given an unforgettable lesson. Thousands more might hear it to better advantage as time goes along and the country and society generally would be better for it. In brief, a tyrannical father brow-beating wife and children with rules of conduct even down to terrorism over the most trivial incidents, substituted fear for love in the hearts in the home circle. “Bring up a child in the way he should go” was his axiom which he enforced with the big stick. The result was what might be expected where the sublime note of the Nazarene, “Love one another,” was forgotten. A social worker checking up a wayward child uncovered the misery of wife and children and rescued the girl.

We don’t know how far such rigidity in loveless homes extends. It does not seem possible that father or mother could exert such tyranny. But there is no question that the attitude which this sketch so powerfully portrays is a serious factor in the making of society as it is to-day. Suppression by force creates the situation that leads to an explosion with disastrous results. This was the case not many years ago with the Romanoff dynasty of Russia; it is the inevitable result in the nation, the state and in the home. We do not doubt that dregs in the social scale too often result from blind, unintelligent, inhuman tyranny in the home. The Teacher of Nazareth certainly reminded the world of that when he said of the commandments, “The greatest of these is love.”

—Editorial in _Evening World Herald_,
Omaha, Neb., November 12, 1928.

THE AMATEUR ARRIVES

At what stage in its development the tribe began to seek means of collectively expressing itself must be left to the author of the “Golden Bough” to determine. Rudyard Kipling, however, having made some slight study of the organization of the Solutreans, arrived at the conclusion that the modes adopted about the time the glacial ice began to retreat from France and Great Britain were numerous and altogether sound. “There are nine-and-sixty ways of composing tribal lays, and every single one of them is right,” he observes.

To-day the tribe still has its lays, but it calls them one-act plays by amateurs. They are just as authentic as the lays of the Solutreans, but the professional producer labors under the obsession that, whether there are sixty-nine ways, or more, or less, of writing them, every single one of them is wrong from the standpoint of the regular theatre. The professional producer has a formula the substance of which is that a play, to succeed, must be written to what is understood to be the order of the audience. Certain things that will “get across” must be put into it; certain others must be carefully excluded. So audiences listen year after year to standardized productions, interspersed at rare intervals by the works of the few men of genius who are strong enough to make their own rules....

The amateur, therefore, is driven to the Little Theatre and this at once effectually damns him in the eyes of professional producer and professional critic alike. As a famous Chicago critic wrote, nothing that is any good can come out of the Little Theatre, and it rather increases its handicap if a playlet wins a prize in a Little Theatre contest.

The impossible, however, has happened. A Little Theatre play has not only won acceptance on the Orpheum Circuit but has become the head-liner. The play is “The Undercurrent,” and it is astonishingly outside the limits of the formula mentioned above. The author, Mrs. Fay Ehlert, owes her first chance to enter the field in competition with the “regulars” to the chairman of the circuit....

He was willing to try anything once, so he had it put on at a Sunday matinée in Chicago, before the hardest possible audience. It was not even set down on the bill for that first try-out. It was not only at the disadvantage of being the curtain-raiser, but it was acted by amateurs, students and professors of the Northwestern University, who, unaccustomed to the auditorium, spoke in tones too low. Furthermore, it was a “sad” play. In short, every element was present that seemed from the beginning to preclude success....

But it succeeded as only one play in years succeeds. The hard-faced men who attend Sunday afternoon performances in Chicago sat silent for a moment when the curtain fell and then broke into tremendous applause, giving the first of the series of repeated curtain-calls that was to mark the subsequent progress of “The Undercurrent” on the Orpheum Circuit. Localized as the action is in a city of the United States, and limited in time almost to the moment, the playlet, nevertheless, contains elements of universality that have made it as acceptable in Canada as across the border. It was presented for the first time in Vancouver on Monday at the Orpheum and is on the bill for the rest of the week.

Criticism of the play as a play appears in another column of The Morning Star. Suffice it to say here, that whatever its strictly dramatic value, it demonstrates that the tribal lay is rightly written when it is so written as to tell the tribal story, and without any design of effecting specific reactions among its auditors.

In other words, if the play, whether a one-act playlet or a drama in three acts, truly interprets the tragedy and comedy of life, the reactions will take care of themselves, the climaxes will come in their natural places, and instead of a machine-made production, trim and neat, a living thing will appear which its very excresences and awkwardnesses will only make more vital.

“The Undercurrent” will not be the last Little Theatre play to be billed along with “sister acts” and song-and-dance features. The tribe is likely to hear its own lays hereafter in the middle of the clearing.

—Editorial in _The Morning Star_,
Vancouver, B. C., September 4, 1928.

IGNORANT MAKE VIRTUE A CRIME

It is seldom that a vaudeville audience, or for that matter any other audience, has an opportunity of seeing so perfect a piece of stagecraft as “The Undercurrent,” which was shown last week at Nixon’s Grand Opera House on the R-K-O circuit.

The one-act play presented a vivid picture of life, the characters being a brutal janitor and his brow-beaten wife, their son and daughter, a mischievous neighbor and a social worker.

The playlet showed many things. It showed how, in the hands of the ignorant, virtue is transformed into a cruel crime. Pa Fishyer has a code of good conduct which he instills into his family with blows and paternal tyranny. The family is spiritually sick, and they fear and hate him. The playlet is another evidence of growing self-consciousness and a return visit would be more than welcome.

—Editorial in _Philadelphia Daily News_,
March 18, 1929.

MRS. FAY EHLERT

To-day, at 1 P.M., in Beury Auditorium, the author of “The Undercurrent,” a one-act play, will address Temple University students under the auspices of the Templayers.

It is interesting to note that “The Undercurrent,” which Mrs. Fay Ehlert submitted to the Little Theatre tournament in Chicago, won the Edith Rockefeller McCormick cup, the first prize. What is even more interesting and should arouse the investigation by students is that this playlet is regarded by many critics as the greatest one-act production ever written.

Temple students should avail themselves of this rare opportunity to meet or listen to Mrs. Ehlert. There is no doubt that she will have a message to give to her audience, especially that group interested in contemporaneous dramatics. Occasions like this help to round up the education of college students for they bring to the college speakers who are in actual contact with authorities in the work-a-day practical world.

—Editorial in _Temple University News_,
Philadelphia, Pa., March 8, 1929.

The thanks of a public extending far beyond the comparatively narrow limits of vaudeville most assuredly will be heaped on President Hiram S. Brown of R-K-O for his recent declaration in favor of stretching the major circuit’s policy in regard to the one-act play....

Often, in fact much too often, the former administrations of the big time have promised solemnly that they will boost the one-act play.... It has almost reached the point, however, where the cry of “Wolf” has been given too often. Yet, with the undisputed success of Fay Ehlert’s classic of a one-acter, _The Undercurrent_, ringing in our ears, we can conceive of the big time being really in earnest now to boost sketch material as it has never been boosted before. After all, _The Undercurrent_ is making money for R-K-O, and it is creating good will. Every movement needs its leader. The dramatic sketch in vaudeville has one in Mrs. Ehlert and her knockout of a sketch.

Bringing the one-acter back to its old place in the vaudeville realm will mean more to vaudeville (as vaudeville and not as an impersonal link in a monopolistic chain) than any single factor we can think of at this writing. The sketch fills a place that cannot be usurped by flash and acrobatic acts and “whoopee” units. One can’t get away from the fact that there has been something vitally lacking in vaudeville these last several seasons while the sketch has been wearing the weeds as a grass widow, divorced from its rightful mate, vaudeville.

We like and heartily applaud Hi Brown’s publicized determination to boost the one-acter. He can stop our little show any day in the week by proving to us and all the others interested that he means what he says.

—Editorial in _The Billboard_,
April 13, 1929.

THE THEATRE’S POWER

One of the splendid examples of the excellent work by the “Little Theatres” of this country is to be staged in Albany next week in Fay Ehlert’s “The Undercurrent,” booked for the Grand.

In these days of “whoopee” shows, canned music and celuloid thrillers it is refreshing to find, of all places, in a vaudeville bill a burning human drama that drives home a moral lesson, vividly and concisely and makes one feel that the theatre is actually a force in the development of American character.

There is a real hope for the legitimate drama when a vaudeville house makes a play like this one a feature of its bill.

—Editorial in _The Albany Citizen_,
April 5, 1929.

THE UNDERCURRENT

Ugyancsak nyitott szemmel kell a világban járni annak, aki a minden szépitgetés nélküli reális életet akarja a szinpadra vinni a maga kegyetlen, hideg és kiméletlen valóságában. A körülöttük mozgó zavaros athmoszféra minden furcsaságát és szertelenségét legkevésbé azok érzékelik, kik szenvedő alanyai az élet kisebb-nagyobb tragikumának.

Más légkörben élő és tisztultabb erkölcsi érzékkel rendelkező egyének képesek csak megérteni azokat a szenvedéseket és belőlük levonható tanulságokat, mik az emberi erények és gyengeségek összeütközéséből keletkeznek.

A mindennapi élet soha meg nem szűnő apró tragikumait szinpadra csak lehet vinni, ha azok a megszólalásig hüvisszatükröződései az életnek. Máskülönben unalmas, szintelen és erőtlen a darab, mert apró drámák — kis szenzációk.

A nyomort, sőtétséget és emberi szenvedést megkapóbban Maxim Gorkijnál senki sem tudta szinpadra vinni. Azonban Gorkij egy férfi volt, kinek irányát követni csak férfiak merészelték, mert alacsonyabb lelki életet élők világának tanulmányozására a gyengébb nem idegrendszere nem volt berendezve.

Azonban a modern nő lépést tart a férfiakkal és nem riad vissza olyan problémák fejtegetésétől, mikre a tegnap nője még borzalommal gondolt volna. Egy ilyen uttörő, modern nő Fay Ehlert, ki “Undercurrent” cimü egy felvonásos drámájában merész kézzel, de érző szivvel tár elénk egy mindennapi életképet, melynek milliőjét Gorkij sem választhatta volna meg reálisabban. Ez az izigvérig modern nő megtalálja még a legsötétebb környezetben is a jót és nemeset, az egyszerü külső alatt is finoman érzékeny szivet, s a határtalan anyai szeretetnek és aggodalomnak egyszerü keresetlen szavakban annyi melegseggel képes kifejezést adni, hogy a közönség átérzi, sőt átéli a szeme előtt lejátszódó kis tragédia minden fájdalmát.

—Editorial in _Philadelphia I Függetlenség—Independence_,
March 15, 1929.

“THE UNDERCURRENT”

Fay Ehlerts packende Skizze aus dem Leben. Zugstück in Keith’s Palace Theater.

Wer in ein Vaudeville-Theater geht, weiß meistens schon im voraus, was er zu sehen bekommt. Manchmal wird man aber überrascht, angenehm überrascht, wie diese Woche im Keith’s Palace Theater. Tanz und Gesang rauschen an uns vorüber, auf einmal, plötzlich und unerwartet, steht man mitten im Leben, draußen auf der Straße der Großstadt, oder in der “Basement”-Küche eines Hausverwalters, des “Janitors” eines amerikanischen Wohnhauses. Die Vorgänge in der Familie versetzen uns in die rauhe Wirklichkeit. Der Vater glaubt seinen Erziehungspflichten zu genügen, wenn er seine zwei Kinder, Annie und Emil, recht streng behandelt, zu sklavischen Gehorsam erzieht, so wie man es “vordem” mit ihm gemacht hat. Er erreicht aber gerade das Gegenteil. Die Mutter erzittert in Furcht vor ihm, und die Kinder schlagen den falschen Weg ein. Wir lesen so viel über Kindererziehung und modernes Familienleben, hier ist ein-aktiges Drama, “The Undercurrent” von Fay Ehlert, das jeder Vater und jede Mutter sich ansehen sollte.

Dem wahren Leber entnommen, packt das Stück mit unwiderstehlicher Gewalt und gibt jedem, den Vätern, Müttern, getreuen Nachbarn und desgleichen, eine gute Lehre mit auf den Weg. Kein Wunder, daß das Haus nach der Vorstellung in Beifallsstürme ausbrach und der Vorhang sich achtmal hob und senkte, die Zuschauer im Theater sitzen blieben, um das Stück ein zweites Mal zu sehen, während inzwischen draußen auf der Straße die Schaulustigen in langen Reihen standen und ungeduldig auf Einlaß warteten. Eine wunderbare Skizze, von Fay Ehlert den Tiefen des Menschenherzens abgelauscht!

Die Verfasserin hat das Stück selbst in Szene gesetzt und sich auch hierbei als Künstlerin erwiesen. Gespielt wurde von den Vertretern der verschiedenen Rollen mit staunenswerter Echtheit. Da muß zuerst Harriet Allyn erwähnt werden, die in der Rolle der Mutter eigentlich einen Charakter schuf, der im Theaterleben bis jetzt nur sehr selten zu finden war, eine von Angst und Fürsorge für die Kinder und unterwürfigem Gehorsam gegen den Mann zermürbte Frau.

Die Unterströmung, die das ganze Stück durchzieht, ist das Wesen des Vaters. Er hat die gute Absicht, seine Kinder ordentlich zu erziehen. Manchmal fühlt man Mitleid mit dem Mann, der in seiner Unkenntnis der menschlichen Psyche den Bogen allzustraff spannt. Wir könnten uns keinen besseren Vertreter für die Rolle denken als Curt Benisch. Seine verhaltene Wut, seine zurückgedämmte Kraft, das Bewußtsein, daß er unbedingt recht handelt nach seinen Begriffen, das alles wußte Curt Benisch in großem Künstlertum zum Ausdruck zu bringen. Die Zuschauer saßen in nervöser Spannung, daß sein Temperament unerwartet auch über sie hereinbrechen möchte.

Fast ohne ein Wort zu sprechen, zeichnete Charles White den Sohn; in Kostüm und Ausdruck durchaus lebenswahr wird die Tochter Annïe von Gladys Pfeffer gespielt; die schwatzhafte, klatschsüchtige Nachbarin und das versöhnende Element, die Wohlfahrtsdame, finden in Florence Thompson und Ethel Swift geeignete Vertreter. Alles in allem: ein glänzendes Stück, brillant inszeniert und ganz hervorragend gespielt. Hut ab!

—_Wächter und Anzeiger_,
Cleveland, Ohio, December 12, 1928.

PRZEDSTAWIENIE SŁAWNEJ AUTORKI

W naszem mieście będziemy mieli sposobność zobaczyć po raz pierwszy 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.

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.”