New-York tribune., 1921-05-08
Arnold Bennett Would
Make Dramatic Criticism
A Calling of Leisure

IN A@aAAA9 va AOAo aaA -
Discussing dramatic criticism in
morning newspapers Arnold Bennett
makes a plea IN The London Daily Ex-
press for more leisurely consideration
Of the first-night performance by re-
porters Of the theater. The solution
he offers is to send the critics TO the
dress rehearsal.
"A1l dramatic criticism in morning
newspapers is thoroughly unsatiafac-
tory" says Mr.. Bennett, "aud nsces-
sarily so, because the conditions under
which it is done are impossible. The
blame does not lie on the critics, but
on the directors Of newspapers and the
directors Of theaters jointly. No critic,
however expert, can do Justice either
to himself or to play in the time
placed at the disposal Of critics Of
morning papers.
"The conditions ought to be altered,
and could be altered.
'In the old days a French daily
had three theatrical writer's, the 'ceur-
rieriste,' who wrote the gossip, the
'soiriste,' who wrote little essay
descriptive of the first night to be
/ printed the next morning, and the
critic proper. whose considered opin-
ions appeared once 3 week. 1t may
or may not be true that the modern
public will not wait for tidings of a
new play, any more than it will wait
for reports Of political debate or =
divorce case. | doubt if it is true, but
/ even if it is true the difficulty OF time
might be overcome by sending the
critics to the dress rehearsal of n
play.
II remember that at the dress re-
kearsals of the Savoy operas the thea
ter used to be full and that many
critics were among the audience. More-
over, to-day il play is produced on
Saturday night you will often find the
majority of the critics of the Sunday
papers at the dress-rehearsal on Fri
cay night. This is the answer to the
argument that to send critics to the
dress-rehearsals would not work 1t
actually does work when it is tried.
And critics, if they chose, might go to
both the dress-rehearsal and the first
night.
"The situation of the critics of eve
ming papers is bad, but not so bad as
that OF their morning colleagues. And,
I. the whole, their articles are assur-
edly better. The articles of the critics
| of weekly papers are out of sight bet
ter still.
"But critic needs something else
besides time. he needs taste, knowl-
edge and experience. Very few critics,
and especially very few daily critics,
possess these three. Many possess the
third, some possess the second Casually
combining it with an infallibls parti-
ality for the tenth-rate), and scarcely
any possess the first.
"There is one outstanding instance
Of critic on the morning press who is
simply provided with all three; but for
long years he has refused to take the
theater seriously, and | will not say
he is wrong.
"As regards daily papers Of vast cir-
culation, I would not demand that crit
les should express or should even hold
opinions that will stand the test of
time. No! Big publics prefer that their
papers shall reflect their opinions-and
why not ?-and / would be content if
morning critics expressed clearly and
| Interestingly what is likely to be the
view of the average man about play.
"But they do not. Again and again
you will find the most ridiculous plays
treated as masterpieces, triumphs and
marvels-and the plays fail ahjectly.
The public has shown more discern
ment than the critics.
son the other hand, though less
often, great popular successes begin
their careers amid a chorus of news
paper damns. Thus not seldom the
| morning critics indicate to the public
| neither what it will like nor what it
ought to like. The fact Is that the
critics have no discoverable standard.
Gail that can be affirmed with GER
tainty is that any production, unless it
| shows real originality, stands good
chance of being grossly overpraised.