Los Angeles herald., 1908-06-21
WHY NOT BURLESQUE3
WHY NOT MELODRAMA
CERTAIN distinguished playwright

4 CEHIAlN QlStlnBulSHeu playwright
IA of British birth, addressing him
- self to botanical subject, once
remarked that "a rose by any other
name would smell as sweet" Verbal
lists since his time have pointed out
error in the statement, maintaining
that the rose does not smell at all,
though 1t gives forth an odor pleasant
and delightful to those who do. This
bubble, however, Is apart from the
subject matter.
The point our dramatist sought to
make was the fultility Of names, though
elsewhere in his writings he seems TO
cnotradict his own pronouncement:
Good name in man or woman, he
says, 80" is the most immediate
jewel of their souls" This. you may
note, is restricted in application, though
1t may reasonably be much amplified.
Some one else, too, has set forth the
reverse of the proposition: Give a
dog bad name, and hang him"
All of which brings us, If somewhat
tediously, to consideration of nomen-
clature as 1t is applied to current the
atricals.
Two terms of eminently respectable
origin and import recently have fallen
into disrepute among audiences to such
an extent that they are now seldom
applied save in their debased sense,
often in way of reproach. The most
vital and enduring plays of contem-
porary authorship are, properly speak
ing, melodramas; yet they seldom are
announced as such because consid-
erable majority Of the playgoing pub
lie has come to imagine that melodrama
necessarily involves the presentation
of sensationally false views of life.
For this condition the managers are
themselves to be blamed. This, how
ever, Is immaterial. 1t explains, but
does not ameliorate the difficulty.
The longevity of proper melodrama,
its firm hold upon the approval of
American audiences should require no
proof. The thing is too obvious. Yet
because of a mistaken understanding
of the term on the part of playgoers
managers have Jared far in search OF
other designations for their wares.
Henry Miller, par example, might have
jeopardized the success of 1.-THE Great
Divide" had he anpounced the play for
what 1t is, melodrama. And David Be
lasco. whose fortune is founded upon
melodrama, leaves the term to Theo-
dore Kremer, owen Davis, Hal Reid
and others of their kidney-the very
men who have so prostituted the word
as to make 1t taboo to legitimatists.
In musical entertainment the good.
old-fashioned burlesque has been SINH
larly flouted, until our theatrical entire
preneurs fear the designation very
much as the devil is popularity supposed
to dread baptism of holy water. This
phase of theatrical nomenclature has
resulted in a curiously elastic system
of falsely descriptive terms. We have
musical comedies that are, properly
speaking, burlesques; we have "re-
views" that are pure burlesque; we
have travesties and extravaganzas.
Thus the organization which will
make its debut at the Grand next week
will present as its opening attraction
not burlesque, but a review" and
will be known as the "Gayety Extrava-
ganza company"
Properly, burlesque is a "take-off'
on incident and character; it is not
necessarily "take-off" of wearing ap-
parel; nor does 1T necessarily employ
vulgar double entendre.
There is nothing meretricious in good
melodrama, nor in good burlesque.