Los Angeles herald., 1910-01-30
BY W. HERBERT BLAKE


temporary stage a minister in the
middle west has pleaded very con-
Vincingly for more rigid standards of
moral censorship. His cause is so
righteous that perhaps 1t is only
natural that he overstate it. "Witless,' -
"insipid" and "orgies of obscenity" are
his way of characterizing certain cur
rent dramatic offerings. To meet the
evil he suggests a legal censorship In
else a more scrupulous care in it's
praise of plays. To call white, white,
and black, black, is the burden of his
message.
He admits that this would be most
grateful to the financial Golfers of
such managers as cater persistently
TO depraved instincts. Yet he believes
that in the end something would be
gained for decency by persistent pill
lory of the offenders.
10 one who spends a goodly share of
his waking hours in the theater-
doubtless CHASTITY thought to the
strictest sect of the Pharisees--his view
of things suggests two obvious reflec-
tions. The first is the possibility of
telling just what a prurient play is
like, without undue elaboration either
put the issue squarely up to the pub
lie. Give them the facts. say many,
and let them make their choice.
But what are the facts? And who
are the public? The facts about any
play or book are set of quantity
twisted and sometimes intangible
things which can be unraveled very
handily according to any one of a |
number of antagonistic viewpoints
They are partly explained by the play
Wrights view of the universe and
partly modified by the stage mana
gers daily breakfasts before rehear-
sails. They are inevitably colored by
what we all think about the ideals |
and phenomena of life which they re- |
fleet. A man is not a phonograph nor |
a kinetoscope. These are such plati- !
tudes as sometimes escape us in the |
mathematical pursuit of moral propo-
sitions
To relate ones prejudices to the
public's is not so much a duty as a
necessity. Apparently, Clyde Fitch at
length accomplished this task in 1.-THE |
City" after a life of more or less
complete self-exclusion from the real
tiles of existence. But to immerse
ones self in the popular fancies is
rather agreeable as a dream than pos
.sble as a performance. 1t Is not a
question of telling the truth about
"
about it does that as he sees it, or
he does nothing worth recording. 1t
is rather a question of finding the
truth about life, and every man who
lives tries to do that. though innumer-
able dragons intervene.
But here enters in another factor
the public. And here occurs our Sec
ond casual observation on the subject
of stage morals. 1t is this, that the
stage is neither a drawing room nor
a private club. 1t seems to be some-
thing about midway between the two.
The first negation explains the pres
ence on the stage of certain primitive
jests of the human family which good
society, doubtless wisely, has fore
borne to tolerate. We agree to laugh ;
at some homely incongruities because
we are laughing at what the mass of
mankind has ever considered funny. ,
We may make a wry face of it, and ,,
recollect the proprieties. but we laugh.
I do not see that we suffer for it, ,
morally or esthetically.
But then, again, there are yarns, ap
propriate enough at a small gathering .
of congenial spirits, which plainly do ..
not fit the more battling requirements
of the stage. The attempt to override
this prohibition, which is in the very 1,
nature of things, gives us certain high
1y artificial modern farces. They thrive
for a day and then enter the unutter =
able night of utter oblivion. So long as .
they can command audiences of folk {
who might do the things depicted with d
no observable qualms, they make '
Fortunately, those people do 1
not attend the theater with any real !.
pertinacty. 1t is too dull for their =
superlative fancies.
Unfortunately most clerical opponents Z
of the theater do not reckon with the v
easy tolerance and salutary fickleness
enters the playhouse for the first time
sees much to affront his sensibilities
b which regular attendants are too
accustomed to even yaWn at. Many S
Of these things are not immoral, mere L
ly frank. To pillory bit of human h
mirth at something which happens v
every day in the week in some excel t
lently regulated household or other, f
would be to assail not the theater, but /
the sense of humor itself. That is Il
rather too big a task for any mere r.
critic. a
There is a more menacing side to this F
question. If any writer for the daily le
press consistently, though with the d
best of motives, points out the occa- Z"
sionally prurient side of things, he g
quickly turns the attention of his read ii
ars to that side. Attack Salome dances ct
With sufficient virulence and everybody d
will go to see them. Worse than that
everybody will be thinking of them. -
md the Great White Way will speedily
,nlarge it's borders. Laugh at Salome |
md the world laughs with you.
This is not to say that any and all |
,orruptions on the modern stage should
,e treated as a jest There are plays
which by their very nature and intent
lrouse the hatred of decent men and
vomen To write about such plays is |
o denounce them. To praise them
ngs so hollow as to beggar the tawdry
i'm of the writer. l have some times I
hought that the surest way to rout
he monster of impurity wherever he
hows his face on the modern stage
would be to let the clergy review such
lays as come readily to the mind, but r
o force them by the specter of the 3
,ox office, to speak in praise, not h
lame. The very insincerity of the G
orced tribute, the sheer stilted Ian +
uage Of approval would revolt the ~