Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-11-27
REFORM In A SMALL WAY.
Views Of an Observant Actress Upon
Dress and Flower Throwing I'm The.
0terS.

From the n. Y. sun.
''There seems to be among American women
a lack ofjudgment about dress at the theater
and the opera said well-known actress who,
though she has travelled extensively. remains
thoroughly American, to Sun reporter, during
a pause in rehearsal in an uptown theater.
There is nothing between full dress
and street dress; the charming demi-
toilet. which is almost universally
becoming, is almost unknown Unflatter-
ing as it may be- there are few women to whom
full dress Is becoming; ordinary features and
faulty forms cannot stand the contrasting splen-
dor of satins and vevets in pale tints and the
elaborate elegance of full toilet. But at the
theater. and especially at the opera, hats and
bonnets might be abandoned. and ladies might
pay each other and the artists the compliment
OF something more ornamental than an ordinary
street dress. There is also very practical rea-
son against hats at the theater. They are the
destroyers of both sight and sound. Nearly
200 years ago Addison spoke of the beautiful
appearance of a theater full of women with their
heads unadorned except by the hairdresser's
art.
1.-The gala look Of foreign theaters is produced
solely by the difference in the style of dress that
prevails in contrast to the sober and business
like attire of an American audience. Nor can it
be urged that to leave off the Objectionable hat
and to wear an abundance of soft lace and
flowers would be conspicuous. except as being
in conspicuous good taste. 1t is to be wished
that the custom Of giving singers and actors
flowers after an encore could be reformed. No
more graceful or poetic idea can be devised to
express the appreciation of the public than by
giving flowers when this took the form of
throwing upon the stage the bouquets with
which every lady in full dress should be pro-
vided. 1t was chiefly gratifying because of its
Spontaniety; but what on earth is more awk-
ward, more devoid of respectful sentiment. than
the cruelty artificial anchors and hOrseshoes
logged down an aisle by an usher and tilted over
the orchestra?
ut is true that not every woman who attends
the theater can afford a bouquet, by which |
mean mass of scentiess and souless flowers
crucified upon tOothpicks: but large proper
ton of them could afford a few flowers. tied
gracefully by the stalks. to be given as sponta-
ncous tribute at happy moment. Why does
not some woman of fashion go back to the prim-
tive beauty of this custom and redeem it from
the grotesque vulgarity into which it has fallen?
And why, in the name of art and sentiment and
reason. should those floral mOnstrosities which
are the delight of the flower dealers heart be
suffered to exist at all? If a man or q woman
wishes to give an artist flowers. if he or she
have not the courage to take simple bouquet
boldly into the audience. at least he or she need
not spend enough to buy two bouquets in a
hldeOus floral piece. suggestive of funerals,
which is totally unsatisfactory to everybody eX
cept the man who made it. When the ladies
shall appear with uncovered heads and when
popular artist receives half dozen pretty bou-
quetS straight from the hands of the donors,
then will be worked a great reform in small
way"