The New York herald., 1922-12-24
WHO KILLED COCK ROBIN,

To the Dramatic Editor;
Mr.. Gilbert Miller. in a letter to you.
states that ne had no more to do with
tho selection Of the protagonist of The
Texas Nightingale than did the writer
Of The Reviewing Stand. that he was
in unique predicamenr" upon accept
ing the play because ] insisted upon
casting II. and that he had nothing TO
say as to its Interpretation" This is
hardly correct.
The ~House Of F'rohman," knowing
that my play had been written for a GER
tain actress. signed a Joint contract for
both the play and the appearance Of
that actress In the leading part. If this
constituted unique predicament.
Mr.. Miller should never have entered
into the project. Aside from this tact
had only the same power of veto over
the cast that every writer belonging to
the Authors League ordinarily secures
through an Authors League contract.
As for its interpretation do not
quite know what Mr.. Miller means when
ne says he had nothing TO say about II.
All I know 10 that he sale nothing. He
never honored us by his presence at q
single working rehearsal except one,
and that was In Chicago after the open
suggestions on that occasion which were
followed painstakingly. But during the
week before the New York opening,
while we were rehearsing every day
at the Empire Theater. we did not see
him once, not even at the dress re-
hearsal the night before We opened.
Consequently this seems to me late
day for him to wall publicly that the
play was "blunted in its performance
However, believe that no said the
same thing to many PEOPLE while We
were still trying to draw audiences TO
the Empire; so I suppose that one
should not be surprised because he has
taken the opportunity afforded by your
criticism to array himself against his
own ontsrprise--or rather an enterprise
Of the Charles Frohman. Inc. for which
he asserts he is the steward.
What I maintain is that he has no
kick coming" as there was not mem
ber Of the cast so stupid that he or she
could not have learned anything that
Mr.. Miller had TO teach about the plays
interpretation" And incidentally. the
performance OF thu "protagontst of The
Texas Nightingale so aroused his en-
thusiasm in Dayton, where the play was
first given. that he announced he was
going to star her az soon as the play was
produced In New York. This statement
was made. not only to me but also to
several other people associated with the
enterprise.
However. In spite OF Mr.. Miller's pres
ent coldness on the subject Of the cast
in general, do not believe that any one
bla.mes the acting, for tho withdrawal
of the play at the Empire. certainly
do not. And I do not believe that the
actors blame tho play. Neither do I
blame the public. Criticism of acting
Is always largely matter of personal
opinion; and as you yourself say. any
positive performance Is likely to be the
subject Of a desperate and definite battle
Of opinion between critics. But feel.
as think every other playwright does,
that when the value Of play Is brought
out In such way as to arouse critical
enthusiasm for the piece itself. II Is
proof that the cast has done excellently
In the matter of Interpretation. ] know
should feel little ridiculous If l did
not admit my own debt to the actors In
"The Texas Nightingale" for the skill
full and truthful manner In which they
put II over"
And / do not want the serious and
intelligent critics who did derive enjoy
ment from their work. and have ac-
claimed It almost enthusiastically toI
think that ! feel anything except deep
my work on one hand and damns their
performance on the other 1t is, of
course, q little amazing, even IL Mr..
Miller did not concur in the praise be-
slowed upon "the protagonist Of The
Texas Nightingale In particular, and
the production In general, that he did
not find II advisable TO keep silent; for
as a result of his public attack upon
these players. feel that almost any
actor might well be afraid to sign
contract with n management given to |
advertising It's dissatisfaction In such n
fashion. It must be a bitter aftermath
read. after achieving so much acknowl- |
edged success In q difficult and unique
role. that the management never wanted
her to play the part. and now considers
her responsible for the death of the play |
......This Is really q new danger for
artists TO ponder on......Will Mr.. AL
Woods-if Miss Helen McKeller. for in
stance, IL ''panned" by Mr.. woollcott-
rush into print to explain that he thinks |
she deserved II? Or 10 there any likeli- |
hood OF tho Theater Guilds writing to
Mr.. Woollcott that they agree with him |
that Tho Lucky One" was neither cast
nor produced properly Or perhaps Mr..
Gilbert Miller will get around to writing
another letter. telling Mr.. Woollcott he
was quite right to denounce his fathers
performance In La Tendrosse" as Ca
tarrhal." but that the House of Froh-
man" AMPLY couldn't mako him speak
up......Q thought Il q beautiful perform-