New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-03-05

When the purchaser examined his
property he found that it contained an
incident "A bit too unpleasant for even
the stage SO he relinquished his
rights, and the play passed into the
hands Of Manager No. >. The exact
moment when somebody got the idea OF
making the play satire IS not known.
One thing, however. is certain. SerI-
cusIv and Mechanically offered.
"Pay Day" would have been unpleasant
20 the point Of offensivcness. In
short. il would have been failure That
few would have regretted.
To carry the suggestion of pictures
the various scenes of the play we're
linked together with screeS flashes.
Undoubtedly this step was taken prior
10 the decision TO make the play
satire; il is hard TO believe the con-
trary Then the prologue and the
cnilogue were inserted. These, IT was
believed. would take the curse of
some Of the more mclodramatic Incl
dents b. showing that the man and the
woman were not taking them seriously:
Then the elaborate screen leaders
were written and there renamed only
the most important thing Of all.
This most important thing consisted
Of leaving tho body Of the play alone.
The fact that the play was not broad
cned at this point, turned from satire
20 burles0uC. Is one of the managerial
phenomena Of the age. II is so re-
markable an occurrence, in fact, that II
plants the seed Of suspicion. Is 1t pos
sible. in fact. that the play was not
really satire until the ilnai curtain
fell on the opening night?
The truth is that the management
gave no evidence Of its knowledge OF
the fact that the play was satire.
The advertisements said that i was
"a melodrama of New York life; the
theatre programmes we're non-commit-
tai they styled il new talking mo
tion picture play IL IS, or course,
impossible 10 believe that authors and
management were taking it seriously,
rnd only seriously. But 1t may easily
have been that they were at loss as
~ how to take the play. and were wisely
not committing themselves until they
saw how the cat jumped " the pub
lie thrilled TO u. II WAS melodraina;
# they laughed At it. it was satire.
Evidence TO support this belief is con-
tanned nm the fact that both pro
cfammes and advertisements now All
uounce that the play IS satire. only
on such half-and-half theory can
some Of the subtletios of the play be
explained.
4 large part OF this subtlety is con
tanned in the way IN which the play rs
acted. Il is played IN the precise
spirit in which countless g. (sic) melo-
dramas have been played; the heroine
does not indulge in too many OF the
hackneyed expressions Of distressed
maidens: the villain does not resort 10
so much As a single "Hs. Ha!" to draw
laughs from his audience. No one
who missed the prologue would believe
that the piece was satire.
In reviewing the play VIC took occa-
sion 20 call attention 10 the cheapness
OF the scenery. and it was not until a
day or so later that the thought &C
cured that even the scenery might
have been a satire. To our dying day,
however, we shall insist that this IS
an accidental subtlety. Whether the
play is to be regarded rs an accidental
auccess-if IL turns out 10 be success
will always be a mooted topic. Al
all events, it furnishes one Of the
greatest examples of the not-written-