Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-09-07
New Plays on Broadway
BY Percy Hammond

that they go TO plays full of hostility.
The producers are regarded as inhos-
pitable men inspiring public hatred by
their Indifferent and tnimical attitude.
They are as much disliked as Rookie
Teller used to be, or j. Pierpont Morgan
before Ivy Lee and other soothing press
agents endeared them to the popuiace.
NOV comes Lee Shubert in a grace
4 full mood of friendliness. Not long
ago I suggested ironically that, since
the producers often present plays in
credibly bad. it would be nice for them
to submit their works to jury of pro-
fessional critics before they exposed
them to the Broadway drama lovers.
Mr.. Shubert writes me as follows:
Dear Mr.. Hammond: Your recent
Sunday article on bad plays Which
sometimes slip past the lines into
Broadway thedteTs noUes me to reply
NTH an acceptance OF the proposal you
make. There is no reason Uhy the
dramatic critics should not be permitted
to attend preuietDs OF mem productions
for the purpose of passing on their
eligibility
With the standards OF plays changing
for the better every season, 1t becomes
evident that the opinion OF some
dtSfnterested group mould be Uelconle.
am sure that no manager t0onld lay
eDen the most Gstute producer finds, to
his dn1dsement, that the play In Which
he has put great faith does not finger
long.
The scheme you suggest could be ar
ranged NTH little trouble. 1t mould
not be difficult to inUite the reptetDers
to private shouting Immediately the
members OF the cast are familiar aDtth
their parts This could be done about
ttoo tceeks before Neto York opening, so
that sufficient time mould remain to
make whatever changes the experts
suggested.
OF course, 7 can think of some slight
hdndicdpS Which iDe mould find it neces-
SdTp to overcome There might be an
inSuperable difference OF opinion. Let
us assume that ten critics, after attend
ing one of these previe1DS, tDrote such
dtssin1ildr notices that the producer tDaS
left in a state of confusion.
One eminent critic might iDrite OF q
play: Magnificent" Another could say:
'ImpoSSibler Suppose half the re-
utetuers called the offering good, and
the other halt called it bad. Then there
are so many degrees OF vdlue betiOeen
these extremes. Is it possible that the
Advance opinions tDould occasionally
range all the tcdy from excellent to ter
ribe?
Our mem comedy, up Pops the
Depil," Dhile it received consistently
good notices, is current example OF
iDIaat mean. One of the critics found
little or no merit in it, and some of his
suggestions, If put into effect, tUould
Gssuredly iDork to the detTtment OF the
play. Another objection-this iDdS a
minor one--tods due to the fact that
our young prot10oniSts in the play
HUed together without benefit OF mar
Ttdge. This, the critic claimed, made
them unsympGthetic.
II your suggested plan becomes a
reality, am sure 1t mould bring about
a better and closer understanding be-
ti0een the critics and the producers in
their task OF staging pl1ys-dnd this
coUers the t0tole range, from picking
the play to casting it and directing 1t.
thank you, Mr.. Hammond, for Your
offer. Yours uery truly,
LEE SHUBERT.