Evening star., 1938-01-09
By M1ryCarfer Roberts.

NCW UIh. AlllCu "a 1AAloPAs
"A 70 CRITIC in America today,
whatever his field, can write
" about George Jean Nathan
1 without some feeling OF graft
tude. For he, more than any other
member of the profession, has made
the way of the critic in America re-
epected and respectable. There was a
time when to write notices of plays,
reviews of books, estimates of art en-
hibits or any other form of Journalistic
criticism was to SCI down strings OF
polite phrases, in their essence about
as meaningful as the words of small
town society reporter vino records that
all the ladies at Mrs. Whoosis' garden
party were smartly and beautifully
gowned. The result of critical writing
under such a system was that nobody
Of any perception paid the slightest
attention to what was put down, and
the writer's themselves must have
found contemplation Of their artistic
consciences pretty embarrassing.
It was George Jean Nathan who set
himself to attack this method of writ
ing and even in his cub days he
went about his assault with devas-
tating energy. 1t was his habit to be
spectacular then. seemingly as mat
ter of tactics. He never dismissed a
play as mediocre. but, after all. we'll
intentioned. or in any other polite
phrase of equivocation. Most certain
l.> = 1,.;fl, rair
He damned. instead, with loud re-
sounding damns. 1t was his habit
when a theatrical exhibition displeased
him to charge upon the unfortunate
production in full panoply, no matter
how minor a thing it may have been,
and to hack 1t, lambast 1t, unllorse it,
trample it to the dust. and, finally,
mounting its lifeless corpse, to demand
wrathfully of its producer and author,
How Is the art Of the theater to live
In America II you persist in offering
the public such unmitigated tripe?"
(Or schnitzel, baloney, custard pie,
ham, trash or hokum.)
For never did he pull his verbal
punches In difference to any oppo-
nent's weakness. There was, indeed,
something puritanical in the flercely
uncompromising nature of his artistic
standards and the fury of his hatred
against transgressors. And the result
Of his invasion, with roars, kicks and
cuffs, of the hitherto ladylike field of
criticism was that shortly his COL
leagues found themselves obliged to
20 and do likewise. For, very simply,
the people found that criticism could
Be interesting, and they began to de-
mand of its practitioners that it be so.
THE Nathan influence was, of course,
limited in its direct application
to dramatic criticism, but 1t had its
effect upon the desiccated dreary
fields of literary and artistic criticism,
too, and so any young critic today
does certainly owe the doughty pioneer
q debt of thankfulness. He has made
honesty the norm of critical writing,
and, consequently. he has made the
profession respectable. There is a
very satisfactory irony in rejecting
that the one-time outrageous icono-
clast (for so he was considered) has
become the standard Of excellence and
honor, at which all young followers
of his profession aim. The Nathanian
career, to the discerning. is, indeed,
q charming little success story in
itself.
But now. today, enthroned on the
peak Of his unquestionable accomplish
ment, Mr.. Nathan confronts universe
In which there seem to be only minor
worlds left to conquer. Many OF the
reforms at which he aimed have been
achieved, many of the evils against
which he used to roar have been cor
rected. He says so himself. The
American theater has grown up. The
mumps, measles and adenoids OF its
childhood have given way to the subtle,
deep-lying troubles of maturity And
Mr.. Nathan is the doctor still. He
admits the growth; grudgingly he pats
the patient on the head. But does
he alter the method of his diagnosis
and treatment? Not a particle. He
swoops down upon the somber sorrows
of the thirties as violently as he used
to attack the growing pains Of the
teens. And, somehow, the procedure
does not seem to be exactly apprO-
pirate.
In his present book he sums up the
past theatrical season, visiting his at
tentions about equally upon actors,
playwrights. critics and audiences. He
also includes chapter on Hollywood,
or. If you please. the pictures. And
We find him here using the familiar
technique Of his storm and fury-the
long. overloaded sentence, the violent
expletive. the insulting anti-climax-
and the subject matter somehow does
not call for such attacks. Is it pos
sible that Mr.. Nathan, like somebody's
coffee, Is dated? Is it? Well, the re-
viewer can only record that time and
again throughout his book she found
him moved in excess of any possible
motivation. He seems man who will
use . steam shovel to crack nuts.
IN SUM he tells us that Mr.. Max
we'll Anderson is q fine poet, but
wordy playwright, that English actors
are incapable Of demonstrating the
manlier emotions, that successful ac-
tresses are generally the result OF
somebody else's brains, that most
members Of the acting profession are
dim-witted of1sHge. that Eugene
O'Neill is the leading American play
wright. that critics are pusillanimous
frequently and that the movies are
tripe (or schnitzel. haloney, custard
pie, ham. trash or hokum). Have We
not heard this before? How many Of
Mr.. Nathan's theatrical seasons have
been summed up in about the same
ternns2
It seems to the reviewer that the
discrepancy lies in the fact that Mr..
Nathan, like so many puritans, is an
idealist. He writes with habitual vio-
lence about what he sees in the theater,
and the violence, as well as its habitual
manner of expression, seems to him
justified because mentally he is con-
trasting the poor reality with the per-