The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-06-18
WHO DID IT?' HAS
FADING INTEREST
New Mystery Farce Causes
laughter When It Is Not
Expected.
PRODUCED AT BELMONT
Champlin's Work Provides
Genuine Amusement Part
of Time.
who Did It."-At the B.lm,ut Theatre

who Did ItT' which has been shoot
irg in and out of the theatre news Of the
last three weeks much after the man.
rer of the evasive Ffnneysn, really set
tied down last night long enough for an
audience to make its Acquaintance. The
tire. which was originally designated as
its habitat and not ut the Harris which
proved inhospitable.
Stephen Gardner Champlin, author of
'eEW'ho Did It?'' II not to be found among
the list OF American dramatists. He
called the new work " a play In three
acts with more twists than a cork
screw" He moreover proudly drew the
attention OF the spectators in n pro-
gramme note TO the fact that the action
rassec one October evening between the
hours OF 80 and 10 AS In the living
room OF a home in n neighboring city.
While Mr.. Champlin may be new as q
playwright he shows an anachronistic
respect for tho unities
Deepening Of Interest.
rPay which had shown such vitality
To have been three times announced and
postponed and then to have gone TO the
mat with the invincible cinema-such a
piece must possess some kind OF
strength. II begins In the mood of
drawing room comedy of a conventional
character, but when the heroine shot
. man who had come TO blackmat her
the tone OF interest deepened. Her hus-
band was by her side. and this proxin-
ity led to his apparent completely in
the crime.
Then three other persons were found
to be carrying pistols-an with one
thirty-two calibre bullet missing. When
the Investigation OF the District Attor-
ncy. who happened to be q guest. was at
its height II was found that the corpse
had disappeared. Since even a mystery
farce founded on n murder cannot make
much progress without a corpse there
had to be a pause to ind that Important
element OF the plot. When II developed
that the whole story was an effort to
prove that the heroine could act and
should be allowed TO 20 on the stage. in
terest faded altogether.
Yet Mr.. Champlin's play is not with
out possibilities. He II not q resourceful
nor experienced playwright and II was
natural that he could not realize them
stage and perhaps more skilful playing
of some of the roles would have i'm
proved the more or less raw material
tina. the playwright had supplied There
were at times occasion for genuine
amusement while at others there was a
throb OF real interest.
Playwright Intent Bames.
But 20 bafiing Yves the intent Of the
playwright at times that the laughter
came when IL was not expected and the
interest at times altogether disappeared.
In more experienced hands in all de-
partments Of the theatre who Did It?'
might have well served it's purpose OF
thrilling and amusing.
Mary Hall acted the perplexing hero
Inc naturally and with intelligence. while
George Chrystie. one Of the quartet Of
suspected assassins, contributed by a
restrained and we'll poised performance
more to the play than any of his asso-
ciates But there were few tasks to test
the ability OF any of the players.
Mile Freeman was amusing as an
Irish servant and Francis Morey would
have been more useful to the general ef-
feet IL his district attorney had been
less astute.