New-York tribune., 1920-05-02

falmer, Il suppose | must
number myself among your vet
eran theatergoers, more especially
since have we'll over thirty
years Of playgoing behind me.
But at least those years have brought
some compensations, and one of them
is the pleasure l take right now in
defying Mr.. j. Ranken Towse and
other advocates Of the dear dead days
beyond recall with the statement that
have never taken greater JOY in the
theater than during the last season.
and never has what critical faculty I
may possess been appealed to more
frequently.
I have seen good half dozen (per-
naps one or two more) superlatively
good productions, and larger number
OF superior ones. Moreover, have seen
number of individual performances
which | have not hesitated to place
side by side With my most cherished
memories OF older players. Among the
theatrical portraits Of the year that
nave thus hung in my gallery of the
gods are the three Barrymores, par
ticularly the amazing John, with his
startling and almost incredible devel-
opment in voice and art. In my opin-
ion, also, his acting was the best Of
the year, for that matter of a number
OF years. | also remember with rare
pleasure Frank Bacon, Margalo Gil
more may the fates send her Soc
rates for mentor!), Blanche Bates
what noble blossoming of winsome
siflhood has been hersD, Pauline
Lord, Gllda Varesi, Helen Hayes, the
entire cast of Jane Clegg,' Lowell
Sherman, Barney Bernard (within
strict limits), Frank McGlynn, Clifton
Ofavford, Brandon lyman and Jose
Ruben. Nor should I overlook that
very promising lad, Raymond Hackett.
incidentally, it strikes me that there
are several reasons why we can take
contemporary laments for the past with
very large grain of salt, In the first
place, let Us remember that the pie that
mother used to make was In large meas
ure navored by the appetite Of youth
In the second place, the days when, &C
cofoing to these Jeremiahs, there were
real actors fell we'll within the period
winch We call Victorian Well, that
was an age Of general foridity, when
ready tears, swoons, gasping outcries,
e'Statlc gestures, convulsive grimsces
sno resounding oratory were esteemed
indispensable to the expression Of men
Mi and emotional disturbance. Read
'as letters, biographies and novels of
'ne ume. Is it any wonder that our
veteran critics find the playing of the
present day tame which seems to be
me Chief cause of their quarrel with it?
"s~h Waiter Hampden's Hamlet ex-
,'hehs IN many respects, but also hope
'sssis out-moded in it's fearful accents,
'en-consciousness and distractingly in
ss'Saht movement, and then call to mind
Mf. Iowse's enthusiastic commendation
Of it.
!, rev things are deader than most of
.a' modes of thought. feeling and ex-
PRESTON Of the Victorian Age. The
"s'0-saxon world at least has grown
!" %'fe reticent and critical regarding
p.ay OF emotion. Therefore, to my
''''iu, II Is more than douh+f,,l 1yha+har
ven the greatest of the actors of the
ras' r,,. could re-create in US the thrills
A4'a their contemporaries enjoyed.
..a'hiy, the accounts of some of For
s's performances are not altogether
~ assuring. AS matter of fact the art
a. 'ay number Of idols did not survive
W ~ sest OF second generation. Lester
,sAscks did not, or at least the popu-
AZ. appreciation Of 1t. Moreover. our
~ st critics would do we'll to remember.
a. 'aere were dissenting voices from
-. ~ general approval of even the gods
ns'Ves. n.N Charlotte Cushman, Efiie
s.noa' Joseph jefferson and Henry
@ all considered Edwin Booth a
ancent reader. but not great
~ ana only one Of these commenta-
az uid have been considered rival,
49,. 40 most generous one, while two
ga. I'm were Booths devoted friends.
- 4o ssiii another point which makes
aes whether IN the present day