The Waterbury Democrat., 1946-03-14
Walter WInchell On BrO0dw0y
sssss HsN Rss'a~ua csSvrSAA ~'A DsS ,A''o'

pay Q fine of 5000 pounds-wnS eS- poiled from the University of Ox- ford--he was dlsharred--he had Go stand twice in Q pillory each time losinR an car--and he had to sut- fer perpetual imprisonment
 Lest Che shuberta think it was their idea--let us say critics were barred from theaters over 900 years ago, Tn fact Qarrlck once had Go hire 90 tough guys to see that the critics didn't get in.
 In Oldcn days critics delivered their Judgments orally in the the- aters or in coffee houses, They felt that they ran the thoaters.n In l7So they decided that no soreigners were to appear on the London stage ', When the Drury Lane Theater advertised Q French dancer the rites were so sore they decided to burn it down They relented however and only wrecked the interior Next day their lead- CT ca marQuis) sent the manager 100 pounds to fix up the theater and the manager put up the rest of 1t to appease the critics.
 In 1903 A, B. Walkley drama erie tic of The London Times was re. fused admittance to the opening of Henry Arthur Jones "Whitewasning Julia" because for four years Walk icy had blasted Jones. The Man- ager had written The Times to send and unprejudiced reviewer but The Times ignored him.
 Rymer Csaid to be the first Eng fish critic and called by Pope one of the greates) banned Shake- peare especially "Othello" which he thought was drought with "improba- bilities."
 HaElltt the great British critic summed up the present mess long time ago. What you say in praise of any individual" he said "is set down to the score of his merit; what you say otherwise in common justice to yourself is considered as mere etfuSion of spleen stu- pidity and spite-as If you took a particular pleasure in torturing his feelings"
 During the last war Q movement to abolish the dramatic critic was started by producers and play wrights. They characterized the reviewers as "Self-styled critics whose sole interest in reviewing productions seemed to be to turr a delicious phrase indulge in ques' tionable facetiousnesS or vent sple. netic bias" Only the HearSt papers were exempt the producers feeling that Hearst critics left room for the public to judge for them. selves Variety too (in l9l7) blasted the critics for being Tespon. Sible for a drop of 60 per cent ir theatricald production over Q perioc of ten years.
 In 1917 HeywOOd BROun was bit terly attacked for alleged vulgaritN in his review when he wrote: "Wt refuse to subscribe to the doctrine apparently held by all female play wrights that any man who is lef unprotected with 6 woman fol more than an hour runs the al most certain risk of becoming { father" It was suggested tha Broun's reviews be edited by P. r A. Broun replied: we hop this can be arranged. At present tn lucky stiff gets away from the of flee every day before 6 o'clock"
 Several decades ago in Rome young student Signor Eugene Bog giano invented an automatic dra matic critic. In the form of penny slot machine - it allowet audiences to insert metal discs (ol which their opinion was registered into the machine As the audi enoe filed out they rendered thei judgments thus doing away witt the dramatic critic.
 Remember back in 1882 when ReI | SlrOVlcn nOCly ACLaCkeu the Qrdm critics in Congress? He called then "mountebanks, shysters, quacks an pretenders who are disgracing tn profession" He blamed then for keeping B'way in dark. empt theaterS, causing e less in taxe for the govt and for aggravatin unemployment"
 He swOre to get George Jeal Nathan and Winchell for defendin the critics The critics wer summoned to testify before the Con gressional committee Con Patents to explain why they spoke dis paragingly of the theater Onl Robert (Mirror) Coleman appeare Harry Hershfield was one c the key witnesses for Sirovich. |. .. Another Congressman told Sirovici to shaddap, that he was wasting time on things that weren't i'm portant Sirovich (now with tn other worns). of course, was an eX