Evening star., 1944-02-23

unoer MS own Dy-llne, is Wnen ne is
slugged or sued by an indignant
actor, or when one critic decides the
time is ripe to expose the super
flciality, or ignorance, of a colleague
The general disposition of other
writer's is to let the critic reveal
himself, as brilliant or base or some
thing else, task for which he, HIM
self, apparently is deemed best quail
flied.
An exception to that rule was
Samuel Raphaelson's play. Jason.
Two seasons ago. Jason" lifted the
critic right out of his aisle seat and
put him in the center of the stage
as one of the principal characters.
1t was quite a novel thing on Mr.
Raphaelson's part, the more espe-
cially since his critic was tinged
with villainy, perf1dy, sycophancy
and a rather liberal dash of churl-
ishness. He was otherwise malev-
olently gifted, but these were his
outstanding characteristics. This
was quite a different conception of
him from that presented in Arsenic
and Old Lace" in which his main
flaw was high quality of ire
sponsibility and vulnerable ego.
The reception for Mr.. Raphael
sons play was profoundly uncordial
The critics found it substantially
odious and remarked as much in
their more contemptuous adjectives.
Many nonprofessionals agreed with
them, but there were others who at
tribtued the reviews to the pettiness
of their authors.
Whichever estimate was correct,
"Jason" did not remain around very
long, a rather unusual thing for a
play by Mr.. Raphaelson, whose last
previous work was "Skylark," with
Gertrude Lawrence.
It did, however. enjoy a sufficient
success in comparison with other
Broadway products to merit the at
tention of the motion picture pro-
ducers. For one reason or another,
nothing happened. The movies were
distinctly chary of the whole prof.
ect.
There were reports of an offer
from one producer who had in mind
revising the script to make the critic
a singer. To this furtive intent, the
story went, Mr.. Raphaelson replied
with a curt no. His man was a
critic and he would stay that way
or it was no deal.
1t remained no deal for more
than year.
Now, according to Prof. Leonard
Lyons, instructor in the humani-
ties and inhumanities of New York
the situation suddenly has changed
Hollywood will take Jason" as
written and produce it with per-
feet fidelity to Mr. Raphaelson' S
sense of a playwrights integrity.
The news is very pleasing.
One of the reasons it is pleasing
Is that it bespeaks an end to a
prejudice that Hollywood long has
felt in favor of other classes of
neWspapermen Heretofore, when
ever it wanted to attribute any
form of skulduggery to Journal
ism, it has picked on publishers,
editors and reporters-with a few
circulation men thrown in for good
measure. 1t has painted them as
everything from robber barons to
jackals, sometimes in such wildly
garish colors as to divert attention
from the fact that there are noble,
self-sacrificing, public spirited and
heroic men in journalism.
Always the poor critic was ig-
nored with the implication that he
was just Wizeneo little chap who
wrote his wizened little opinions
and went directly home to see how
the petuniaS were growing.
There was one halfhearted ex-
ception to this rule. 1t took the
suave, corpulent form of Laird Gre
gar, who played a bullfght critic
in Twentieth Century-Fox's remake
Of Blood and Sand" Mr.. Cregar