Evening star., 1932-09-04

oIten Dltterly denounced by
producers and dramatic critics
i as a cruel devourer that snatches
from the theater- its choicest
histrionic offspring. Luring them with
its ill-gotten gold, it carries these un-
happy actors to its Hollywood lair,
where it turns them into delicious re-
pastS for the ignorant but hungry
screen-going multitude. Leaving out
Hhe invective, there is much to be said
FOR the charge. Since the film mag
mates are-or at least have been-able
to pay salaries that the Broadway pro-
ducers could not approach, it is the nat
alral result In our capitalistic society
that so many of the distinguished vet
erans and promising newcomers of the
lstage have betaken themselves to Holly
wood that 1t frequently becomes Diff
cult for the local managers to cast their
hplayS properly. It has come to be that
tplays must be cast with players on
vacation from California, players who
Shave not been successful at attracting
sWestern gold. and stern and idealistic
performers whose love for the theater
Us so great that the offer of fortune
will not tempt them away from it.
All of this Is, of course, most graft
flying to the motion picture, but it must
jbe confessed that it has its darker side
SFrequently it has the effect of lowering
the not always too high prestige of the
tscreen In highly unjustifable manner
For example, there Is the case of Rod
Ia ROGUE. At this late date it seems
fcruel and unusual punishment to single
sOut Mr.. La ROGUE for added con6em-
snation. Poor fellow, he already has
been accused of high crimes, misde-
;aneanors and putting back the new
dramatic season at least two weeks, and
he y1nf or1t IN oH to Fc-
dngs, but his name must be used once
more to point a moral. For almost
every dramatic commentator insisted
upon looking at Mr.. La Rocque's mo-
notonous performance in William A.
.Brady's late lamented Domino" as
proof that a mere movie" actor
couldn't be expected to give good
characterization upon the lofty and
diflcult stage. Even Brooks Atkinson,
the fairest of critics, called Mr.. La
Rocque graduate Of the movies"
Thereupon he was not altogether fair to
the screen. -.
Knowing his way around In academic
circles, M. Atkinson realizes the diff
aerence between graduating" and
''1unking." 1t happens that the Holly
wood career of 'Dominos" leading man
belongs in the latter category. Unsuc-
cessful in the medium of the talking
films, he turned to what still Is quantity
called the Legitimate" stage. touring
the country with his wife, Miss Wilma
Banky, in a financially successful pro-
duction of Cherries Are Ripe" 1t is
therefore hardly fair to Hollywood to
look upon the cinema capital as either
"a university for graduating" bad actors
or such an easy place to crash that its
triumphant performers are sure failures
amid the austere complexities of the
New York stage. Any such charge over
looks the number of successful Broad
way stars who have been failures in
sHollywood, Just as it overlooks the fact
that such player as, say, Miss Lois
Moran, product of the cinema, can
lind her way about in the the3ter with
considerable effectiveness for Beverly
Hills immigrant.
A s a matter of fact, any debates con-
corning the comparative merits of
stage and screen acting are pretty
academic these days, since both me-
ldtums have come to feature almost the
identical performers. For some rea-
son, however, it appears to be difficult
Hor any one to be allowed an attempt
at compromise between these two self
Gtyled art forms. There really is no
treason why 1t shouldn't be confessed
fhat they are both inherently admirable
and even exciting dramatic mediums,
with their individual virtues, defects
Sand potentialities that there is enough
Noom for both Of them; that neither is
1ikely to perish miserably or become fit
hpnly for half-wits; that they are two
manifestations of the same instinct for
imaginative make-believe and not deadly
foes battling each other on the edge of
a pecipice. In fact, it is my firm con-
Eviction that most of the debates be-
Mtween their respective defenders par
lItake of quibbling, hair splitting and
lhow many Shotkin Brothers can dance
on the point of a needle.
There Is. for example, the vigorous
charge Of the stage defenders that act
ing on the screen should not be ad-
amired as much as acting in the theater
Hor the reason that screen acting Is SO
much easier Just what difference the
physical simplicity of the histrionic
process makes it is difficult to under
stand II the stage actor played his role
standing on his head or while balancing
himself, a la Joe Cook. on huge ball
1t would be more difficult still, but would
have little to do with good acting. That
the screen player has the advantage
of being able to take a scene over and
over again until 1t is Just right, while
the stage player must walk through his
role from beginning to end without any
such assistance, does obviously tend to
give the former great advantage, but