Omaha daily bee., 1910-03-27

relation OF the press TO the stage. and its
people, and expressed himself as of the
general opinion that the newspapers of the
United States are only doing a public serv-
ice when they fiji their columns with pic
lures and stories OF actors and their doings.
He frankly admitted that he views the
topic solely from the point OF the press
agent, whose business in life is TO secure
as much free and favorable publicity for
his star as possible. and frequently with
out regard to methods employed. The pol
Icy Of The Bee has long been a stumbling
block to these gentlemen, and while the re-
lations preserved have in the main been
the most friendly at one time or another
they have been strained just a Little be-
cause this paper will not give away its ad-
vertnslng space.
The function of dramatic critic differs
only in degrees from that OF any other
critic; he is charged with more or less Of
responsibility as an intermediary between
the actors and the public whose patronage
they seek. It IL quite conceivable that he
might very easily be dispensed with, and
IL is also believeable that in many in
stances he would, perhaps. be missed, but
would not be very greatly mourned He
has nothing on which to base his claim
to the state of being Indispensable, nor
has he any great reason to plume himself
on the results he has achieved. In the
! first instance, dramatic criticism as such
is falling into harmless disuse, and in its
stead is springing up a quasi-substitute in
form of a review that at times almost as
sumes the Importance of criticism but never
quite takes on its exact character. Much
of this pseudo-criticism passes muster for
the real article, and as such is relished or
condemned as 1t suits the pleasure Of
those most concerned, who are the folks
Of the theater. On the second count. the
critic has had such great quantity Of proof
of his harmless inconsequentiality as to
even shake his own faith in his dicta, let
him thunder them with never such trumpet
tones. Plays have been praised, and actors
lauded. and yet the public would have
none of them; and plays have been con-
demned and actors pilloried by the critics
unanimous verdict, and yet, despite the
condemnatory chorus, the public has poured
out it's coin in literal and liberal streams
and the convicted plays have sailed trium-
phantly on, over the craft Of the critic to
the harbor of Success. With these exam
pies before him, it is either a very young
or very old critic who will seriously un-
dertake to make or mar a play or an actor
%
Not that the work of the critic is alto
gether In vain; actors there be who take
their work so seriously that they will give
| earnest attention to words Of advice or
hortative suggestion from one they trust as
being wise and competent; and even one
they do not know may point out to them a
better way of doing something, and for
this reason the earnest actor always cher
hshes honest criticism. 1t is only the pseudo
criticism that annoys them; the sort that
never essays seriously the discussion of any
phase Of the work of the actor, but con-
tents itself with flippant reference to SOME
thing entirely irrelevant, or passes off the
! efforts of a man or woman supposed to be
rational and soberly intent on the accom-
plshment of a purpose by an impertinence
that would not be undertaken in a personal
interview. This latter phase of modern play
reviewing Is its most obnoxious. If the re-
viewer be capable. he may be justified in
his witty thrusts at what he deems the
shortcomings Of author or actor; but 1t Is
the exception that makes the rule in this
case, for the vast majority Of reviewers
mistake pertness for wit and visit unde-
served brutality instead of we'll aimed
| pleasantly on Ino OAIeHueIS' WhSh thS
critic learns the difference between a
scalpel and a cleaver. can dissociate him
self from his own personality, and can
view the performance under consideration
from an abstract attitude, he will find him
self inclined to give credit for the effort
even II he be compelled in justice to find
some fault with the result This will en-
able him to deal justly, at least, and al
though he may not be able to point out
the exact remedy needed, he will have in
his favor the exterior evidence Of sincerity.
| d
But this does not argue the necessity OF
the, critic to either the actor or the public;
| II has been proven many times that either
| or both can do without him. If he has suf-
fered, it may be for any one of several
causes, but the one most readily suggested
is that he has wrought his own downfall
| by his own irrational course. If criticism
is to be practiced at all, 1t should be on
lines so conservative that it will carry
weight the hysterical tendency Of the day.
when the crowd seems to follow the voice
that calls the loudest in condemning things
/ as they are, should have no weight. and
then the sober and competent people, to
whose judgment appeal must finally be
made, will be reached. Along these lines
only can the function Of dramatic criticism
be restored to its usefulness, 1t is a legiti-
| mate part of the undertaking Of the daily
newspaper, and has a real right TO exist
ence, the newspaper without opinions is
of very little service and the newspaper
that succeeds permanently must be Of ser
vice The greater its success, the greater