The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-02-09

materlhi toI = gOOd romentic uianhs, cus
As delivered II was very bad hodge-podEe.
As a lesson to writer's of plays II taught
the necessity OF making the characters talk
and act 10 beft the interestingly reasonable
circumstance Of a clear, coherent creecendo
Of the story,
Now that We have used Mrs. Sutherland's
work very freely to Illustrate errors common
TO much that Is written for the stage, IL
is only fair TO publish what she cares 10
say. Il have at no time expressed myself
as indignant she said TO a SUN reporter,
-over the withdrawal OF my. play. Miss
Crosman's mans gement is wholly within
It's rights. But | have expressed surprise
and deep regret that the management
gave the New York public no opportunity
whatever to see for itself whether the play
was to It's liking. The play was received
with such cordially In Philadelphia
and met with such assured and honest
success In Its two weeks engagement there
that IL was natural that it's author should be
amazed and regretful IL was given no OPP
portunity to test itself in New York beyond
Its lamentably ragged hating first
night performance. This and only this
instant withdrawal. l feel that to offer
TO a great metropolitan audience q play
that from frat TO last has never enjoyed
the services OF a producer, and most pain
fully shows this deprivation In its every
scene and detail, Is an injustice alike 10
the audience and TO the author. Had
Joan known, even In Its latest rehearsals,
the authoritative han OF an experienced
producer who could have given his tune
and attention TO the shaping Of the play
suggestions. borne Of q sole desire TO present
the play TO its full worth. star players,
author and mechanicians could have
bowed with instruction and profit,
there can be M doubt New York would
have seen a different play. TO the one pre-
s.A,A1 chat ,,ahavlDx AADIY pt.Ie
Whether on the different play the critical
verdict would have been different the au-
thor does not venture to guess. But she
very deeply regrets. where money was
lavished on beautiful scenery and cos
tunes, II should have been spared where
services Of an experienced, unbiased,
authoritative producer. The New York
10 which Is offered the exquisitely finished.
controlled, Elusive productions OF an Irv-
unstudied M Uncontrolled frst-night
work. The producers business lies here;
and lacking him, nc authors work ever
goes across the footlights 70 critics or
audience"
Mrs. Sutherland continued. 1T Is said
the play suffered through an unwilling
ness TO make changes In the manuscript.
This Is a very fragrant mistake. or the
many chan ges asked Of me / made all, to
the management's expressed satisfaction.
and not infrequently against my own
iudgment-with one single exception.
Surely there Is no manager who will claim
obdurate and harmful clinging to her own
ideas OF an author who, of a score OF
changes, granted nineteen, and denied
one. 1t rs my frank hope that New York
my play in finished and adequate pro-
duction. Then, and only then, will I
feel that New York has passed judgment
on n
Henrietta Crosman's husband and man.
reply to what Mrs. Sutherland had said
about Joan o. the Shoals He responded:
THE play IN not a failure. / consider II an
indiferen. success and as good as some
that are even running now In New York
theatres, Neither Miss Crosman nor my
success; therefore, the substitution OF
Mistress Nell To have achieved a great
success Joan must have been torn limb
from limb. reconstructed and rewritten,
by some one better versed I'm the technique
OF the drama than its author. Realizing
that this could not be done with no impos-
able a person to deal with as Mrs. Suther-
land, the only course left open was to take
the play on entirely. II is true that the
author made many changes before the
plays acceptance. and before thousands OF
dollars had been invested in II; but its pro-
duction once assured, by lack OF time to
prepare anything else or because the money
had already been invested, she appealed
TO her attorneys for protection when
necessary changes were suggested, and at
three different times was there warning
given OF injunction proceedings. II amend
ments were persisted In. The most noted
instance Of this was when II was thought
best 10 cut out the very ~perceptible anti
climax at the end OF the second act. At no
time was the author willing TO be advised
by. consult or work with the manager or
star, but consulted with her friends who were
not Interested, following their advice. At
neither the Philadelphia nor the New York
premiere was the author present, vet each
following morning she sent lengthy, de-
tailed criticisms gathered from those
OF her friends who saw faults only in the
acting, costumlng or scenery. Neither
she nor her friends ever seemed TO think
that the play and its impossible language
might be AT fault"
As TO the production Mr.. Campbell said:
Tho best artists In the land were employed
In their specialties as the result will testify.
The same person who produced Mistress
Nell produced Joan O. the Shoals, and that
person was Miss Crosman. joan except
In the instance Of the author, had a better
nance for success than any new play in
years, for, besides n handsome stage setting,
the name part was played by an artist
whose personal triumph is on record. and
from whom even so poor a play as this
81 -