The Washington times., 1915-02-24
Adaptation of Stage
Successes Is Not
Always Suitable
On Screen

In an extensive exposition of the
ideas Of theater magnates now en-
barking in motion picture enter
prises. William A. Brady stated
day or two ago that one Of the diff
ficulties found by them was the fact
that many of their plays were not
suited to screen production. And
Mr.. Brady also stated that a num-
ber of the plays that have been
produced on the screen from stage
successes were extremely poor ex-
hibitions.
Had Mr.. Brady gone a bit farther
in his statement 1t Is more than
likely he could have told why so
many of the stage successes that
have been produced before the cam
era have made such poor plays. The
reason is very simple. The adapta-
ton Of the play from the stage to
tho screen is done by some one who
does not know his business. Or.
worse yet. by some one who might
be entirely familiar with the needs
of the ,photoplay without IN the
least being in sympathy with the
ideas of the playwright who origi-
nally constructed the drama.
Louis Reeves Harrison. probably
one of the keenest observers OF the
film In the country. discusses this
enough. in an article In the Moving
Picture World. which must have
been written before the Brady state
ment was published. Among other
things MIR. Harrison says:
The trouble Is that men Of Gre
of observation are rarely engaged In
the work OF regenerating the So
called famous plays and novels.
That work is turned over to direc-
tors or to amateurs capable only
of impotent appropriation. The
above mediocrity was capable of
putting vitality into his structure.
a vitality not to be preserved, rather
to be disturbed. by rearranGement
of his story for screen purposes. 1t
is probably on that account that the
about as though impelled by hyp-
motto suggestion. not by the volition
of a warm and throbbing individ-
uality
in a story whose characters have no
souls? Who Is to put souls into
them? Men of no inspiration? When
you watch a screen story with only
slight interest. a sort of mild curl
osity. such as that aroused by the
wax figures In the Eden Musee.
the depths of the thing and you Will
find that 1t lacks inspiration. What
does the adaptation Of a once-famous
work of fiction amount to without
inspiration. the breath Of its life? IT
amounts to nothing more than a USE
less and impotent appropriation.
PILOT, action. situation. all these
are but useful externals. The es-
sence of the whole play is that con-
seriousness which makes experience
possible for the characters. 1t Is the
workings and manifestations Of mind
that the audience wishes to see.
really powerful play gives rise to a
state of individual coma In the audi
ence. Its members no longer live IN
their own little worlds. but wholly in
that Of the leading characters of the
story. Souls in the audience are a
dreaming. They leave their bodies
and live in close fellowship with the
souls of those whose experiences are
being depicted,
There is such a thing as justi-
liable appropriation for the screen
what has served in other mediums.
but the material used must be in
fused with new life when 1t is given
all the published resources of his day
quite as well as from his wondrous
imagination. IL Shakespeare of to-
day We're to take any one of the
Broadway ShinplaSterS on the boards
about the time il was ready to drop
from sheer inability to hang on. he
could infuse 1t with spirit SO great
that it would endure the AGES, all by,
the magical touch of true genius.
He would transform ii.
1T Is that skill which makes the
playwright. His to seize some signal
and imperative message and treat 1t
as becomes an artist and crafts
man. 1t appears at times. as though