The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-02-23
New Morality in a New PLAY
BY FRANKLIN FYLEs.

F~@AcAAAdAASC VI nC tfOiO VI
Woman" a man and a woman in the
audience became so heated in their dis
eussion of the ethical justice of its
theme. that their argument developed
INTO wrangie and they removed it to
the cool OF the lobby. In choosing to
present this first drama OF the very
modern David Graham Phillips. Kath-
crime Grey displayed a defiance of con-
xentionality no less daring than Mrs.
Pstrick Campbell's in resurrecting the
ancient Sophocles' Electra" The
couple who talked their way to the
( loppy were not unlike-only more We
Hnement than-their fellow spectators
lfne3nding subject for discussion in the
extraordinary doctrine set forth by the
Foctalistic novelist and journalist in his
primary adventure in drama The
night air, instead of cooling their
smouldering passions famed them into
flame; and, presently, the male debater
hauled off and struck his companion
resounding smack across her face
Perhaps a board of students of ethics
and Psychology should have been
called in to settle the Wrangle Innocent
~ started by Author Phillips and Act
ress Grey, but instead a policeman
was hailed in on a run from Broadway.
he refused TO enter into any Phillips
Grey discussion of the worth of
Nb4tidJs WIFI Oiu-ldSIlOiCQ
simplicity that a man had struck
woman. and that there was only one
thing TO do. But the couple who had
been drama driven to a point of ply
steal force could hardly be expected TO
accept so simple and obsolete a solu-
ton of the sex problem" in any OF its
forms. So she returned the blow in
the face with re-eehoing violence.
Thereupon, with consistent philosophy,
the Broadway policeman declared it a
cast of tit for tat, and washed his
hands of the whole affair. The released
couple returned to the plays last act,
70 see how Phillips settled the said
ieN problem.
Now, | wouldn't venture TO say what
this dispute was about: but isn't it
likely that the man wanted to right
whatever wrong he had done by mar
rying the woman without delay? That,
in the new morality of Phillips, seems
TO be the only insult that would JUS
tify a woman in unbridled violence.
The message" of this latest problem
play seems To be: You needn't marry
the girl" To recount the argument
set forth i'm the drama with the frank
ness therein INDUCED would hardly be
permissible in a newspaper; il would
bring the blush of shame to the cheek
OF a seif-respecting typesetter In the
more modest terms of the conventional
drama. which Mr.. Phillips scorns. an
Indiana girl and a visitor from Boston,
at her fathers farm, have loved not
wisely but too we'll" That isn't the
way Diana puts it; and she isn't much
abashed when it becomes known that
the marriage between them. dated in
definitely, must be FASTENED. She
sends for the man, but does not tell
him this. For the Phillips code in
forms US that Diana's shame would be
less in Becoming a mother before she
was a wife. than in giving herself in
marriage to a man who was impelled
by duty instead of love. This point
is Argued pro and con and every other
way. thrashed out on the Verandan
andSin the drawing room: discussed on
empty stomaehs, before luncheon, and
on full ones, after il. Diana moons
about it in monologue; and groups of
two three and four argue il: finally
the whole cast assemblies TO decide it.
Diana is about TO submit TO the shame
Of marriage But 1t is too much for
her. She cannot face il. She balks
at the altar.
X y
If Mr.. Phillips had ended the play
there, he might have made success
of the sensational sort. People would
have discussed it at length and vehe-
mently. Ave. even more, men might
have pelted their women companions
or Drained them with canes and opera
glasses But even as the couple of the
second night, whose temper modified 50
ON seeing the last act that they went
doeilely and smiling TO lobster and
champagne. so the public.
s Mr. Phillips might have excited an
upheaval; he has caused hardly a rip
pie. After haranguing every one for
three long acts, Diana suddenly discoy-
ers that the man loves her, has loved
her all the time, and meekly-even
gladly-submits to the ignomy of the
marriage service.
1t would be unjust TO mention Mr..
Phillips first play only in terms of rid
icuie. Indeed, there are several points
about il that excite sincere admiration.
Its failure cannot take from him the
credit of having undertaken TO write
drama free from trickery and stale
stage motives" a play conceived on
a high intellectual plane. His problem
is. in fact, interesting and engrossing;
but he has not digested it thoroughly
enough. Such important points as the
disgrace to her family, and the greater
shame to her child to come, are hardly
considered. But il is principally be-
cause the author has exposed his the
CRY through argument rather than
through character and action that The
Worth of a Woman" is worth very lit
Tie IN q Theatre. w uen MT.
learns more distinctly the difference be-
tween a novel and play. he viii come
nearer TO duplicating his success in the
former. His future in the theatre should
he interesting; he has shown original
ity, sincerity and intellectual insight,
three big qualities often lacking in
dramas of prolonged prosperity.
X x x
In the third act the new playwright
gets most nearly into the swing of eff
fective drama with a scene in which the
girl is about TO be married to her lover,
and it is here that Katherine Grey.
AMONG the accomplished actresses of
our stage. makes impressive use of her
art. The father is still ignorant Of her
plight; but the pleadings of her prae-
teal sister, and of the man in the case
are added to by an elderly clergyman.
who urges her to marry because lin
this world il is seldom a question of
choice between right and wrong, but
between what is the greater or lesser
evil" At the last moment. however,
she finds herself unable to face the GER