The New York herald., 1921-02-20

A CORRESPONDENT calls our at
a tention to q more expert ex-
= ample Of the dramatist's duty
TO keep his last act interesting than
the episode described in the classic
Ladies' Night" Since he refers to a
drama Of the great yictorien Sardou.
il is easy to understand that even Mr.
Hopwood may here have to take Sec
ond place.
There is no finer example OF the
way in which the playwright should
keep an interesting element of his
play in reserve until the curtain is
about to fall" this well informed cor
respondent writes, than the last act of
victorien Sardou's Fedora / am not
unaware of the present critical ten
dency TO decry the achievements Of
his dramatist, but his permanent fame
win not be n the least affected by the
attitude OF generation altogether un-
der the influence OF Bernard Shaw.
When, IN the fourth act OF the
play, the Russian princess has finally
succeeded in saving LoTis from all the
punishments she had planned, there
is still one other penalty she has not
thought OF. Through her machina-
tions the Russian police are seeking
70 destroy his family in what was then
st. Petersburg. OF course, since she
IS now In love with him she would also
put an end 10 that plan.
"Sardou has wisely reserved this
source Of interest for his final act.
The curtain falls on the fourth act.
The spectator Is relieved that the hero
has been saved from all the plots set
for him. Then he remembers the fam
lily. TIE mother in Russia and the rest
who arc 10 be exterminated as mon
and women OF their kind were In that
day. That Is enough to bring the
spectator back promptly to his seat
for the last act. He is too much In
terested in what may happen 10 linger
in the lobby. Surprising as Il may
seem 10 the present generation, the
well made play used to be capable OF
arousing such intense interest in the
simple minded theatregoers OF the sos.
Admirers OF the well made play must
have been abroad last week, since there
comes 10 this department another letter
bearing more or less on the science of
the playwrightR. Doubtless the present
generation OF drama critics holds Alex
andre Dumas IN the same contempt II
fcels for Sardou. He has also been
guilty Of the well made play. So Il
might be observed quickly In passing
has William Archer. who has not served
10 keep the Booth Theatre altogether
empty In his attempt at such an old
fashioned task II was in connection
with the prevailing habit Of changing
the endings or plays until one had been
found that suited tho public that the
second letter Was written.
do your readers recall" the corre-
gpondent asks, the preface to 'Prin-
cesse Georges written by Alexandra
Dumas 1. HRS cfiiectes volumes? IN
discussing Ilss pusriole change In the
outcome or play the dramatist deals
with the matter as one might expect
from writer who looked upon his
stagecraft with all the respect one
might feel for science. He says that
the premises OF n play should be ms
certain as two and two. Now we know
that those two numbers added together
make four.
$50 should tho elements in every
story when combined make scientific
result which cannot. be changed OF
course, instead OF saying four we may
cav ak or three or any sum. but II Is
true that two md two make only four
whatever we may choose TO call the r.