Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-14

glamour that romantic screen admirers
brought to their consideration of shadow
heroes and heroines, and that as soon
as mechanical voices we're added these
hierarchs of the picture play would
seem so commonplace and bloodless
that the most ardent of fans would
rush away from them in disgust The
only trouble with this idea is that it
hasn't worked out in practice.
Instead of sfluddering at the newly
discovered and frequently inexperi-
enced voices of their film favorites.
these advocates have given every EVIL
oence OF being fascinated by them. On
the whole, the talk of the established
screen stars has proved so satisfactory
that it is becoming harder and harder
for the stage interlopers to capture a
nearing in medium wherein they ex-
pected to prove expert. The old-school
cinema players have been so generally
satisfactory that, according to rumor,
the Actors Equity Association, which
naturally thought that the new inven-
ton gave its members an impressive
entrance into the Hollywood drama. is
IN grave danger of suffering its first
major reverse
Just as the idea that a talking
cinema meant q cinema robbed of its
glamour proved too ungracious to the
photoplay and its people so has the
theory that the stage has more values
as a medium of ideas been too hatter-
ing to the conventional theater. It is,
OF course, an axiom of dramatic crit
lclSm that the drama. of all the alleged
forms OF artistic expression, is the most
barren and backward in ideas Years
AFTER some important thought has
reached currency in a novel, or even
an editorial page, it shamelessly makes
ltS appearance in a play, striving as
debonairly as possible to pose as some
thing recent. Even Shaw and Ibsen,
VINO were probably the stages most ad-
Vanced vendors OF ideas, were years
behlnd their colleagues in other fields
of expression. while Eugene ONeiII.
who is reasonably cerebral as a dra-
matlst, is perhaps q decade and a half
behind his competitors Of the novel and
essay.
This almost CHASTITY backwardness in
ldeat1onal content Is so shocking that
the theater must depend for its proves
as form of artistic expression on its
ilVel1neSs. its vigor, its vividnesS and
It's general emotional power for its
enects. Since it happens that the
cinema, as well as the stage, possesses
these values to an enormous extent. they
apparently become equal in audience
value, and the theater is forced to de-
pend on the potential helps of flesh
and blood for its success. When, how
ever, the possible stage superiority is
equaled by the freedom of movement.
the additional scope permitted the films.
then 1t must be confessed that the
ancient medium really possesses no in
herent audience superiority.
1t is by no means the contention of
this sermon that the screen is superior
or even equal to the stage, or that it
Is destined to overwhelm it as a dra-
matte medium. In fact. it is its firm
belief that the two are distinctive dra-
matte forms that must be kept apart If
either is to flourish Importantly. It is
the conviction. though. that the theater
is ridiculous If it believes that either
Its proudly proclaimed flesh and blood
quality or its boosted superiority in
ideas is destined to provide it with vic
tory. 1t would be better advised If It
depended on more sensible reasons for
a successful future