The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1905-10-23
THE PROBLEM.


the mind when one has seen Ann
lamont"
How under the sun could the first
three acts ever have been written
by n man. and why on earth was
thaIpurth act ever written at allg
II u almost Uncomfortable that
MASCULINE mind should have 80 fully
grasped the feminine viewpoint and
30 accurately expressed the mental
travail Of n woman.
II Is wholly ineonceixable that
the, game fine brain which so I'M
afrtnKly drew the splendid lesson
of abe first three acts should have
bsenaEuiity OF creating the fourth.
After Paul Armstrong; subtle nice
ties Of delieaey and strength
Through those first three acts. the
Wild melodrama and the unleayened
commonnesn Of the fourth comes
Ike = slap in the face IL aston
iEhrR.
With the fourth and last act elim-
luafed. Ann Lamont" would be a
great piay-ln the opinion Of the
writer. the cleyereat Of problem
plays before the footlights FOR sey.
cral seasons.
In the motif OF ANN Lamont"
Paul Armstrong has hit upon The
very kernel OF all problem plays
Especially OF the problem plays OF
hroad-mlnded today. This motif
burrows straight 10 the core OF the
matter.
Il deals with the after attitude Of
the man 10 the woman II shows
the two view points. that OF the
man and that Of the woman, and
hos they must forevermore hope
lesaiy differ Above all. Il shows
he's the pride Of the woman. aside
from her bruised morals. must be
csernally subject 10 unjust humliia-
ton through the mental attitude OF
the man
In Ann Lamont" Paul Armstrong
dares TO do another thing. lie makes
his heroine the victim OF her own
fehfilion against eonxentlanality
and OF clever man of the world
whom ahe does not love. And as an
obstacle 10 her happiness with the
man she later meets and loves. he
raises a question OF sentiment and
morality peculiar only 10 the font
niue mind the amirrh of the first
mans mental attitude.
The SNUG assurance Of the man
who considers her foreYermore his
branded property. his unqueation-
ing assumption that she will always
remain AZ his beek and call. and his
mistaken belief that he honors her.
instead of Insults her. BY n last-re-
tort proposal Of marriage-theae are
Eome Of the things Paul Armstrong
deity handles In Ann Lamont" II
Il 4 pity that the egoiiEm of Anns
pefHu-utor Is a little overdrawn in
The matter OF his belief that ahe
loves him. II weRkena a little the
eRoiisms that are more true 20 life
those abiding egotlsma OF the man
personality which 20 him makes n
woman Of his amusement a thing
dependent forever upon his bounty
In the splendid climax In the third
act where ST. Ann finally con
vinees her prosecutor that love Tor
he man who profaned her Is not
only Impossible. but that marriage
would be- loathsomc. Armstrong
makes Il point not touched upon be
fOreJn problem plays Tho wide
mlnde'sness Of Gordon Titus. who.
without vouchers for the lmmaeu-
lateneas OF his own past. declares
himself content 10 take as his
vafr p woman who has confessed to
4 'rftgle stain upon her own honor.
Is given Just the right balance by
tho dramatist. Titus Is not glorified
al d hero for the act. and the dra-
nianAt has left him human enough
70 omit any comparative shortcom-
frgA on his part. nor bow the knee
IN Acknowledgement OF the moral
balance still left to the credit Of the
woman.
Two remarks overheard by the
writer during the second act. each
made by a man, express the man
Viewpoint dealt with by the play.
what q lot OF bosh," was the first
remark made. and every woman
within eRfshot promptly pigeon
holed the man who made It where
u beionged-as one OF the selfish.
self-centered. self-complete tyne
who never understand woman nor
mike honest effort to. who. in the
constituencies content OF his own
undisturbcd moral sense. pronounces
the moral pnrest Of a finer-natured
sex. rot and punseuse II IL this
sort pf man who goes stupidity and
brute llyfblundering through a wom-
ans finer fegbnBa with the ruth
lessneasf of q hull In a china shop.
Small wonder that such a man
should miss the motif of Ann La