The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1906-09-23


Theater durins the past
week, three are sufficiently intelli-
gent to challenge attention One
deals with the plays construction,
another with it's morality, and the
third with its chance of success.
The first is that Of a well-known
WashingtOnian, who is not only a
recognized litterateur, but no mean
authority on stage productions, as
well as on closet plays" His con-
tention. sketched briefly. is that in
the third act, the value of which
is to be found in the cleverly work
ed out duel of personality between
Ruth Jordan and Stephen Client, the
melOdramatic Introduction Of the
brother with his threatening pistol
and violent denunciation is a griev-
GUS error in judgment The tense
ness Of the scene, he maintains, is
thereby unnecessarily disturbed, and
the pitch of the performance too
violently raised,
This objection is undoubtedly we'll
founded. The touch of melodrama
not only jars, it distinctly upsets,
the quiet climax which would other
wise make a perfect ending for the
we'll constructed last act.
The question Of morality depends
altogether on the point of view.
Judged by the severe standard that
would exclude The Great Divide"
from the American stage as too
daring. many of the best dramas of
the English language would have
70 90 on The Index" Nor is IT
necessary TO go back to Shakes
peare or any other playwright Of
morally lax period 10 find them 1t
cannot be denied that the author
has plunged straight to his point,
and has not hesitated about the
plunging. Whether that point is
admissible TO discussion before an
audience is. of course, an open
question. It IS handled frankly, it
is true, but not extensively. Can
didly. the question of morality did
not occur TO the writer while wit
Messing the first performance.
The third criticism is the most
interesting Of all. 1t advances the
view that the play is so much over
the heads of a representative audi
ence that 1t is doomed to be more
or less of a failure from the box
Office standpoint If this theory be
correct. it constitutes rather a Sc
we're reflection on the intelligence
of American audiences. We must
grant that a certain percentage Of
playgoers could not appreciate the
play. II is to be hoped that the
percentage is small.
That there are minor defects in
the drama cannot be denied. 1t is,
however, remarkable that Mr.. MOODY
has erred so slightly. II is hard to
believe that the play, in itself so
good, so admirably staged, and so
excellently acted. will be thrown
away on the cultured audiences to
which it frankly appeals. From the
theatrical srab-bag We are receiving
so many pltifully cheap PLAYS. based
on hackneyed themes, that an effort
TO produce an original plot present
ing an argument worth intelligent
discussion, and possessed Of some
literary excellence, should receive
the unstinted announcement of the
better class Of theatergoers. 1t does
not require the ability shown by the
author of The Great Divide" to
create a rehash of stereotyped ideas
that would surely prove a money
maker. The management of the
Moody play could undoubtedly turn
out that sort without assistance.
Fortunately the box Office has not
get become the universally accepted
criterion Of a plays merit
One visitor to the National last
week found a grievOus defect in ION
Parole" NO Southern girl" said
this critic. would have touched the
hand of a Yankee officer during the
war. And when she heard of Lees
surrender she would have been so
overwhelmed with grief that she
would have found no room in her
heart for love. To think she would
have given herself to a Yankee Of
flcer at that moment is absurd.
The speaker is. it may be deduced
from this plant. a Southerner whose
heart and soul were in the Lost
Cause. At the Metropolitan Club on
the very night that this opinion was
expressed one of the members told
the following story: