The Washington herald., 1909-02-15
The ImnoraIitr Of the Stnpe

There is much pOther and tO-do fn New
York Just now over the question of i'm
morality on the stage. It has gone 50
far that there is talk once more OF the
need Of a censor Of plays. It is
said, for instance. that there are five
immoral plays now running in New
York, though Daniel Frohman limits the
number to three. It is curious to note the
Gtdtude Of those prominent in theatricals
IN regard TO this matter. The New York
American has asked for and published
the opinions OF certain OF the leading
theatrical lights on the subject.
Mr. Erlanger congratulates himself that
the firm Of Klaw & Granger Is not an
offender against public morals in this
respect Marc Klaw. AIr. changers part
ner, thinks there are enough laws On the
statute books 10 prohibit immoral PLAYS
and can see no use for a censor. Afr-
Charles Frohman also does not desire a
censor. believing that the existing laws
arc sufficient Lee Shubers. without
cracking smile. says he would gladly
give his best assistance to wipe from the
stage al Indecent plays, and thinks that
the public should be sufficient censor.
Daniel FrOhman thinks that the establish
ment OF a censorship would relieve mar
ayers Of a responsibility. But the cham
pion OF absurdity n the argument against
The proposed censorship comes from the
New York Morning Telegraph, which
says:
''he ref1unsrs have begun, Is zszsI, AZ The v-oas
snd q the proposition. They attack the imitation
When theJ should 9 0ut to reform TIE rraI thing.
one might as vel fnd fault Eith the lookins-slass
for that It does not make Is seem 50 handsome a.
ne think Eo arc as 70 rzn against the s-zze uecuss
It depics conditions which re nigh. wish did no.
exist"
There can be no doubt in the mind Of
any one who has followed theatrical mat
ters and theatrical progress for the past
three years that something IS needed.
stronger than the public conscience. TO
check the riot OF Ibidinousness that char
acterizes the stage Of to-day. II is
obvious that IN the first place some dis
tinction must be made between the drama
proper and the mere show.
The plays Of many worthy and capable
dramatists deal with unpleasant themes:
some Of the characters are immoral and
90 immoral things. and yet the tendency
Of the drama IS in many cases uplifting
and the trend Is toward morality. Those
who believe that the stage has really
vital work TO do in the social scheme Of
things win see that such plays worthily
presented may. in spite Of their unpleas-
antness. work largely for the ultimate
good It VIII not do to condemn them
simply because they introduce immoral
characters. OF such sort has been the
drama ever since II came into being as a
child CT the church.
But there can be no possible question
as to the immortality. the inutiIity. or
the need OF regulation Of those vaude-
Vile shows which are variously labeled
in this country as extravaganza, review.
musical comedy, or what not. There Is no
pretense about entertainments Of this
sort Their first, last. and only function IS
to amuse; IS TO purvey froth and glitter.
tinkling music, and ancient humor-a riot
OF color. a babel Of sound: and when
these fail sufficiently to excite there has
been added thereto dizobing acts and OBJ
scene situations that have gone 50 far
that even bIase New York. with its jaded
sensual appetite. is becoming shocked
II We have, indeed, reached the point OF
shocking New York there needs 10 fur
ther argument as to the imperative neces-
sity Of getting some sort Of censorship
for the stage-iest worse befau.