Evening star., 1924-01-27

its title. The subtle distinction be-
tween bold originality and arrant
crudity is the point where efforts at
! censorship become confused. II au-
! diences demand Red Light Armies,
! there will be productions exploiting
her. And audiences are hard to
| censor.
:: = :: y
The amount OF work that goes on
in play producing is only partially
revealed at the theater. However
| uncompromising may be the realism
OF the performance, the illusions OF
print are expanded with profusions.
! 1t is an easy matter for a play to
secure testimonials. RED Light
! Annie" records on its billboards all
/ Endorsement which seems to imply
i that the shades of Horace Greeley
and William Winter are. by modern
! proxy. bending over to pronounce
! benediction. Men OF eminence often
/ write testimonials in spirit OF
| sheer generous affability. Members
OF Congress, in the old days, were
| known to write hopeful and cheer
ing words about patent medicine
which later came under the restrict
i've attentions OF the pure food laws.
Nobody was offended Everybody
| would rather help than hinder
Publication OF glowing compliments
I from all kinds of sources is a promi-
nent part Of the work OF the pro-
! ducing office. We may soon expect
! to read OF how Mrs. Oatstraw was
! cured of lumbago. by laughing at
/ farce, or how Hiram Shux miracu-
! lousy recovered his sight at 4 Fol-
! lies show. Life will not seem COM
plete until magnificent book OF
! pay testimonials comes out with
! the signs OF the zodiac on the first
page and series of weather predic-
tions intcrspersed through the cal
endar.
The idea that when she played a
nice old lady in the Circle" Leslie
Carter was preparing for a career
OF quiescent effacement is disposed
OF by her appearance in Stella Dal-
las. She is a smart and aggressive
woman, this Stella, but nothing at all
like Leslie Carter as the world of
theater patronage knows her. Just
why Mrs. Carter should be expected
to strike out in a brand-new career
is something to be decided in con-
ference by her managers and numer-
Gus authors. There are in this play
three authors concerned, not to
mention the man who staged the
play. In such an assemblage there
must surely be conversational DOW
ers, but they are not reflected in the
dialogue of this play. An actress of
established career must stay in
!character in some degree to satisfy
her admirers. No one can be con-
tent to find their Du Barry and their
Zaza overwhelmed in an atmosphere
of tea table turgidities.
X x
| The art of writing dialogue is rare
and the gift of colloquial spontaneity
is ill-rewarded. The author who is
willing to keep an audience I'D till
midnight in order to listen to labo-
rious talk is too profuse in hospital
ity; too solicitous in hoping that if
this remark does not please another
may; too ardent in the wish that the
guest, if he does not care for an ice.
would enjoy. a charlotte russo.
The substantial satisfaction is lost
sight of.
X \: X
ooh, for another Pinerop sighs a
we'll known producer. Why waste
sigh by waiting it so far? Why
not concede a little to the taste for
homely farniliarities instead of in
| sisting on giving the auditor, as an
extra treat, glimpses Of Paris or the
Riviera, with a lexicon for a tele-
scope? If the shades of the depart
ed, or of those present but not an
swering, are to be invoked, our own
continent might be worthy of a few
sighs; sigh for old George Boxer,
who wrote plays that were classi-
fed offhand in popular esteem as
Shakespearean; BARLEY Campbell
or. a Bronson Howard, or, if the
mood is merry, a Charles Hoyt: or,
to forsake the mausoleum and look