The Washington herald., 1921-03-13

~N THE THEORY that any. professional type
writer-pcker is entitled to three tries at
~ cess in stage writing suppose 1t is merely
Christian to take more chance the literary
maunderings of Philip Bartholomae. who dished up
recently bit of dramatic sumgulon called THE
Open Book" for Evelyn Nesbit and who later than
last week. aronted the critical faculty with musi
cal dud called "Tangerine"
BarthoIomae revealed a rather low order of craft
ethics in writing play that challenged Hobart's
Blue Flame" $ the seasons BOBBY prize but he
betrayed in '-Tangerne" woeful absence of knowl-
edge of the elements that make for suspense and in
terest in stage writing.
Bartholomaes open Book" was a nauseous sort
of affair wholly designed to exploit the colorful past
a stage figure, precisely Hobart's BLUE Flame"
exploit the professional "wickedness' Of Theda
Bara.
Between the two. there literary choice to
be made. One was dramatically atrocious the
other. The sole determining factor that made for box
ofhce success in the of The Blue Flame" and
for box-ofhce failure in the of The Open Book
the fact that the present generation of movie
more interested in observing famous
vampire in the flesh than it in observing
Hobart has long since ceased to deny that he fire.
auently walks with in the gutter of his craft
Bartholomae. without saying a word begins on that
level while critical justice demands that
at least product of his stylus Is entitled
to the X-ray and the carving knife. the fact that
'Tangerine," his newest effort, decidedly ctric
in quality. is really matter of particular sur
prise when Barthoomae and his open Book" are
remembered.
For this reason-and others-I am strongly forninst
the shedding Of crocodile -Tangerine" and
Its producer. earle Carleton 1 admit without argu-
rnent that sympathy stop drawn out a bit
here last Tuesday morning, but the constant habit
sympathizing with a faltering producer, matter
how boobish his enthusiasms, must stand as an ex-
The best thing that happen to "Tangerine," :"
from the standpoint of the theater will be ex-
ceptionaly rapid demise. Unfortunately. however,
Barthoomae may convince Carleton that "Tangerine"
only a little fixing make it another Irene"
II he succeeds. can only extend in real fashion
my sympathy for the cast in the coming ordeal
- ARLEToN. himself. probably realizes by this
1 time the part that luck of a prodigious order
~ played in his production of Irene" The case
of Tangerine. suspect represents the true Carleton
producing flair. For all know, he may have planned
Irene" the nucleus of a school of musical
comedy affairs with titles ending in "-ine," like
-Irene" "Tangerine," "Oleomar-." But could
suggest indefinite number of titles.
As a producer Carleton should have known the sort
the past He knew, should have known that in
Producing "Tangerine" in the breath with
Irene apt to call for invidious comparisons II
he had looked past Robert Millions strange
ability pose director, he'd have known that
Mr. Mton's stage direction has left much to be de-
sired in the past.
As a matter of fact, it isn't likely questioned
for a a single of these deeterious ele-
ments far have prohibited the development
of -Tangerine" from formless concoction Of lines,
music and actors to a musical comedy.
One can sympathize. properly enough, with an
impresario of the Dillingham; order the failure
of things like The New Dictator" and The Half
Moon" Such failures boxofice failures, like
Beyond the Horizon" or Broken Blossoms" In the
case producers of the Carleton ilk, however,
can put sympathy to better than lavshing it
mere theater gamblers who call sealed proposals
on a musical comedy book. and title after the
manner contractor When the structure falls
the inherent weakness of its constituent ele
ments, need not ask why better material not
used. Usually. you will find the producer didn't know
material when he saw It..
-.
TT MEssRs. MARCUS LoEw. Harry crandaIl, Tom
Il Moore. ct al. will kindly come to attention and
i move their eyes for a brief moment from the now-
ing crayat of the Rev. DR.. Wilbur Fish Crafts this
chair desires to read communication of particular
moment from Mr.. Roger C. Wells. of Washington, who
arrived by indirect at sovereign
for censorship.
Without actual intention. Mr.. Wells has suggested
a logical solution of the problem. l. movie show
for grown-ups In his communication, Mr.. Wells has
refrained from attacking motives in this matter
he foregone desire to verbally kick the pic
lures under the chin. His communication is, however
standing element in this movie fracas well as the
growing popular idea that movies unit for children
Mr. Wells stresses the fact that the movies habitual
trade divorce, rum-running short skirts clerical
nnolIycoddles. incapable gunhghting. malfeas-
ance in office violation of the postal laws and regu-
and similar disorders in the body polite which,
holds. be spoken of shown.
There is no good in getting mad at Mr.. Wells, for
he represents an uncomfortable large element of the
population that, finding the movies unit for their
demands know why the movies should not
he ebased dramatically to the standard of the infan-
tile mind To the standard, of The Elsie Books
and Tom Thumb" By taking stand of this sort
In the matter they practically admit of their
own inability their children out of the picture
shows and having admitted such inability it is
only natural they should loudly camor for the
Law to reduc entirely safe. and
Y silly status
1 Well. it's a queer condition but it is of the
errors inherent in the policy of trying to make the
movies appeal to the mass rather than specific
Lclasses II Is absurd of to ask Intelligent
neople to watch movies built solely childish
knind but a great many people seem to think they
will do it. Under the circumstances. it the