Omaha daily bee., 1902-10-05

Locally the second week Of the theatrical
season was not especially remarkable ex-
eept for the business at the theaters. THE Is
dine primarily to the fact Of carnival week
and the consequent influx Of visitors. At the
lloyd Jane Remark and her -mpany pre-
eopted Under Two Flags" with its thrill
ing scenes. ten times to aud ences that
packed the theater, while the ten perform
nnces at the Creightcn-Orpheum Of a rea-
s6hably good vaudeville bill were equally
we'll patronized. Miss Remarks presen-
letion Of Cigarette won for her many nav
afmirers. She has certainly wen her right
q be classed among the stars, probably not
those OF first magnitude, but certainly far
from among those Of the least. Her long
ekDerience in stock has been OF immense
value to her, in that It has Afforded her
4 practical education in the art Of acting,
snch as is ordinarily gained only by many
years Of hard work, and has thus broadened
her greatly. She is possessed Of both thu
seal and the temperament, and now that
nhe has broken the cocoon and spread her
&fngs fairly in the sunlight there is no
nod reason why her flight should not be
spng and her course brilliant.
What is the critic to do? Is he to follow
he honest promptings Of a mind more or
Ness prepared for the serious business he
has undertaken OF is he to allow himself to
be swayed by Interior and sometimes sordid
motives, and take the line Of the least
fesistance?" Honesty is the best policy
ID writing as in everything else, but T.
frequently occurs that to be honest is ex-
tremely dificult. Then, too. the critic has
bis audience as well as the actor, ard. as
- A-- zee ---A-.ugr - 60 Il ~ $500
people. the critic often has the unwelcome
task OF running against the notions Of
people who persist in doing their own
thinking. In such event he is set down as
3 concelted prig. a bumptious boor or
something equally unpleasant, when n
merely doesn't happen TO hold an opinion
eoinciding with that Of some one who may
or may not be as we'll qualified to form and
express an opinion. Here the actor gets his
revenge, for he has the added sympathy
that flows from what his champion con
ceives to be an injustice. while the critic
IS in disfavor until such time as he may
happen to touch a responsive chord in the
mind OF the reader-auditor And even
critics do not see things alike. In The Bee
last Sunday space was given to a Icing but
interesting review of the new Pinero play.
Iris by william Winter. in which the
dean of American dramati writer's con-
demned in the strongest language the
motive as well as the action OF the play.
While Mr.. Winter was laundering his con
demnation through the columns Of the
Tribune the critic of the New York Sun
was telling his readers that Iris is a
play which every one should see. Who is
TO Judge between these? Mr.. Winter is
pleading for an elevation Of the public taste,
az A. a.
to the public that which is at least un-
healthy II not absolutely immoral III spite
of Mr.. Winters disapproval. the play which
veneers indecency with a thin layer OF
smartness IS sure to have a successful
run and when it finally comes west the
people will flock to see It even as they
do in New York, because OF the notable
names connected with it. What is true
OF this is true OF other plays. so that one
wonders IL honest criticism has any ap.
preciable value.
In Paris a different condition prevails
There at least the critics have made them.
selves felt IL we are to believe the stories
coming from the gay capital. The Paris
theatrical managers have entered on G
campaign against the critics. Last season
they discontinued the dress rehearsals
which was a sort of press view and a frs
night In all but name, and now they hav,
decided to stop the press tickets for thu
first nights. I'VE are" said one Of then
10 an interviewer. sick and tired Of tn,
critics. We give them free places ant
facilities and they retailiate with advers,
criticisms which thins our audiences anC
makes each successive play a failure
Further, II a journals. writes down a pla,
We shall proceed against him in the Law
courts. II a newspaper were to publish
an article stating hat KS cognac wal
undrinkable the journalist who wrote tn,
article and the newspaper in which I
appeared would be sued for damages. GU
case, as we consider 1t. is precisely simi
lar" One point these enterprising manag
ers seem to have entirely overlooked. l
the X brandy is actually vile It is tn
duty Of any one who may be asked L
write OF II to so declare, not with an,
reference 1t may have to the business o
Y, but because the public is entitled L
know the opinion of someone qualified L
Judge Of brandy concerning the article
No man has a right to poison the peopl
physically and no one should have tn
right to poison them mentally. So II /
a duty OF the critic to frankly condemr
a bad play and protect the public as ia
as possible. II the Paris critics are 4
any way like their American brethren
the Withholding OF passes will not secur
managers immunity from reviews, NO
is II at all likely that the withdrawal @
the customary courtesies will serve I
secure any greater consideration from tn
papers.
Which one had It hrst? A little questio
OF precedence here arises between tw
other American critics.
In his last Sundays collection Of storie
Roy Mantell. who has succeeded Luthe
Bickford on the Chicago Inter Ocean, tell
the following on Richard Mansfield:
Directly he returned from Europe las
month, Richard Mansfield sent for a We
New Life to