Los Angeles herald., 1909-07-04
BY w. HERBERT BLAKE

A SINGULAR involuntary confession
u of the power of dramatic criticism
~ through the daily press may be
bodys magazine. from no less a pen
than that of the frequently irascible,
but always piquant Paul Armstrong,
author of "Salomy Jane" and THE Heir
to the Hoorah." Justly scathing such
newspapers as send the police reporter
to "cover" a serious dramatic opening,
with the single aim of ridiculing star
and play, he extends the scope of his
sweeping diatribe in a way which
agrees with neither logic nor the SIM
plest observation of the man in the
street. That many drama critics are
incompetent conceited and purely de-
structive" 1 unhesitatingly grant. so
are many theologians, plumbers and
playwrights. But that the easiest
manner of writing a certain number
Of words on given play is to poke fun
at it and that this is the settled pol
icy of any considerable number of
widely circulated American news
papers off Park Row, are contentious
almost too ludicrously childish to
answer.
In the first place, the hardest way
to write entertainingly on any given
subject on earth is to poke real, human
fun at it, The easiest thing in the
world is to praise it, especially if 1t
be a play There is a well worn path
of laudation over which certain indo-
lent play reviewers trudge their reg
ular daily trip, like any good, sub
stantial commuter. Such adjectives
as brilliant" superb" excellent
"beftting" Conscientious and a
whole glossary more are right at the
critics elbow in those wee hours OF
the morning when the vitality OF re-
sistance is lowest and the natural IN
clination to please is at high pressure
Next to such indiscriminate praise,
against which Playwright Armstrong
saws not one word of protest as an
honest artist, the easiest thing 10 do
with a play is frankly and seriously to
''roast" it, There is not one play a
wear in q high -class house which de-
serves absolute communication, and
such is usually Objectionable either on
grounds of poor construction or per-
yerted morals. In either event con-
SclenLlOuS EllNlt llOl IlltlNlS NCAlNiNAi'A
but tells why he condemns, and in the
case of the ethicallv warped drama
the alert press agent sometimes halls
an explicit denunciati0n as the finest
sort of commercial asset. Here, at
least, is one angle Of the game of re-
viewing by which many a shoddy show
is bound to reap a temporary harvest
of prurient curiosity. We all know
the story of the comedian who won
packed house for a wobbly show by
standing in front of the theater and
crying: This is the worst play ever
staged. Come and see how funny
rotten show can be With the eX-
hortation suppressed this is the out
come of most outright ridicule. which
is not conceived in the spirit of kindly
satire.
When Paul Armstrong, to take an
instance for the mere sake of clarity
writes a good play entitled Going
Some what more natural than that "a
merry-minded reporter, sent To cover
the theater, should follow the lead of
the slangy title and retOrt, Going
Some is a frost. 1t hasn't got the
goods" This alone, of course, like the
title itself, is too antedeluVian as slang
to push a mediocre play (Which Going
Some" is not) to the $. r. o. pinnacle.
But it, as is usually the case, the re-
porter goes on to relate the humOr of
peared to his irreVerent fancy, his
write up is undeniably advertising-and
mighty good advertising at that. Since
Mr.. Armstrong in his philippe consist
emily aligns himself with the CONNER
cial rather than the artistic view of
the playhouse, he can have no more
iustidable objection to such remuner-
alive publicity than his good friends,
the theatrical managers. That kind OF
stuff gets the dollars, and it is the dol
lars that most managers are frankly,
blandly after. If 'many plays have
been rldiculed off the stage which need
ed but little to give them life" as Mr..
Armstrong petulantly cries, how many
more have been galvanized into an
eight days wonder by a little injudi-
cious levity? Consult the records of
current New York successes for the
answer.
But perhaps, in spite Of his unwilling
ness to accredit the drama critics claim
TO be an artist, Mr Armstrong would
lay siege to that designation for HIM
self and such Of his fellow playWrights
as strive to build careful, Workmanlikc
drama. What if some plays do "need
but little to give them life? Is it the
business of the reviewer to supply the
dramatist that little gratis? AS Mr..
Hartley Davis dispaSsionatelY remarks
in the same magazine which stages the
Armstrong attack;
ut is the business of the dramatist
and producer to provide plays that the
public is willing to pay money to see
The business of the critic is to inform
the public whether or not, in his judg-
ment it is worth while to pay good
money TO find out if it likes the play
The managerial and playWriting intel