Evening star. [volume], December 06, 1931, Image 61

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
r-. H AMUSEMENT SECTION r-—
Stage and Screen < Motor, Aviation,
News and Gossip Radio Programs
Part 4—8 Pages___ WASHINGTON. I). SUNDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 6, 1931.
dEAN HARLOW
'PLATINUM BLpNDf
e AK.LB
WALLACE FORD'
and SALLY BLANE
*X MARKS the SPOT"'
FOX
C-EORGE BANCROFT if
• UlCH MAN'S FOLLY' ?
PA u AC. E
MARY PHILIPS 'i
¥ THE HOUSE BEAUTIFUL"
BELASCO
SketiK'J by
5uadutK.
CEDRIC HARDWICKE and BEATRIX COMSON
•the DR.EYFUS CASE"— MET KOPOt-ITAN
Year’s “Ten Best Plays”
And an Actor's Important
Part in Creating a Success
An Interview With Otis Skinner—Playgoers Con
cerned With What Pleases Them Individually.
Preservation of the Great Actor.
By W. H. Landvoigt.
TO the critic profoundly rich
in the knowledge born of
long experience and his
general efficiency in pick
ing out the moth-eaten spots in
plays that have come under his
scrutiny it may be easy to sur
vey the productions of a season
and calmy designate "the 10 best
plays." This "10-best play” habit
is of movie origin, but now its i
contagion has reached the legit
imate theater. The voice of au
thority rings the bell and all the
little voices chime in with an ec
static emulation that creates a
harmony which sweeps the ordi
nary theater patron off his feet,
however securely they may be
planted in the earth. There is
no disputing an erring guess. You
must take it or leave it, for when
it appears in cold print the mat
ter is definitely settled. Often,
however, in the metropolitan
journals, rather than elsewhere,
one occasionally finds a voice cry
ing in the wilderness that has the
audacity to give reasons why the
experts are all wrong. And some
times these stray post-mortems
are quite clear and convincing. It
doesn’t matter much to the
world, however, which, as a rule,
simply rolls over in its armchair
and comments more or less upon
the entertaining qualities of the
arguments, pro and con, without
concern as to the ultimate deci
sion. Playgoers, like the picture
patrons, are concerned only with
what pleases them individually,
and that settles the matter so far
as they are concerned.
RECENTLY. it seems, Prof. Wil
liam Lyon Phelps of Yale, an
eminent guide to the good things
to be found in the theater, named
a scant dozen of the nroductions
that thus far have delighted New
York. His list includes "The Bar
retts of Wimpole Street.” with
Katharine Cornell; the Norman
Bel-Geddes production of "Ham
let"; “Grand Hotel,” "Julius Cae
sar,” "Hamlet” and "The Mer
chant of Venice,” as presented by
the Chicago Civic Co , including
Fritz Leiber and Helen Menken:
"Mourning Becomes Electra,”
"Payment Deferred.” with a su
perb English actor. Charles
Laughton; "Streets of New York,”
m
a side-splitting old-fashioned
melodrama; "The Guest Room,”
"The Roof," Galsworthy’s play,
"admirably produced and acted,”
and “School for Scandal,” with
Ethel Barrymore. Five of these
well recommended entertain
ments "have succumbed for lack
of audiences,” and among the
five are the Norman Bel-Geddes
"Hamlet.” Ethel Barrymore’s
"School for Scandal.” "The Roof,”
Galsworthy’s p'.ay, and "Payment
Deferred.” which, however, is to
make a try for existence in Chi
cago. Dr. Phelps is a "booster,”
not a “knocker," according to
Percy Hammond, and, perhaps,
that was why he had no remarks
to make concerning at least a
dozen other plays more or less
well recommended by the critics
who reviewed them in the metrop
olis. But even nine of them, to
gether with the Fritz Leiber
Shakespearean company, have
disappeared from the New York
map, some with the hope of sur
vival elsewhere and others to
hope no more Among these are
"The Good Comnanions,” "The
House of Connelly." "The Lady
With a Lamp" and—old-timers,
would you believe it?—“Naughty
Marietta,” an Erlanger enter
prise.
* * it *
\ RECENT interview with Otis
Skinner, by William Engle, a
staff writer of the New York
World-Telegram, really classic in
the beauty of its unl'oldment,
pointed out a truth uttered by
Mr. Skinner, who at 73. enjoys a
distinction in the American thea
ter that is safe beyond the reach
of envious rivals. “The play
wright,” says Mr. Skinner, “shows
the way. and the actors create
the play." Continuing, Mr. Skin
ner said: “There’s always some
thing creative in putting on a
play. It's the actor's work to
make it live, breathe and stand
on its own feet. You might say
he builds the fireplace, puts in
andirons, piles the wood; but it’s
up to you i the actor i to make the
fire. If it doesn't burn, it may
be because the wood is green, or
the fireplace is defective.”
R may be well for the playgoer
or movie patron who is seriously
interested in theatrical enter
tainment to let this observation
sink deeply into remembrance,
j°L ^ will help in solving many
difficulties in determining why
some plays are extolled when they
seem to be filled with faults for
which others have been con
(
*.?■?**
Critics of the New York
Drama Come in for Their
Share of Very Harsh Words
No Result From a Heated Debate on That Subject.
The Tb eater Situation Around Times Square.
A Few Real Successes.
By Percy Hammond.
Dudley field malone in a
debate with John Anderson
last week accused the New
York drama critics of offenses
ranging from sabotage to
mayhem. Mast of them, said he, are
ignorant, prejudiced, wise-cracking and
stuck-up—a hindrance to the drama,
rather than a help. Although himself
a practitioner and advocate of “con
structive criticism.“ he suggested no
real remedies for the situation. And
he sniffed at Mr. Anderson’s sane be
lief that a reviewer’s chief duty is to
the patrcns of the theater, not to its
employes—to appraise results, not to
tutor authors, actors and producers.
Mr. Malone being a sagacious counsel
or as well as one of the drama’s most
affectionate followers, should know that
the evil he rails against could be eradi
cated overnight All the managers
have to do is to forbid us vandals from
attending their exhibitions. The law
permits them to refuse admittance to
displeasing persons, and why they do
not exerctee that privilege more fre
quently is their own fault, not that of
the reviewers, "if you will promise to
write a puff we’ll let you in," they can
say, ' otherwise the gates are shut."
* * * *
DROADWAY’S casual funeral bells
were tolled last we k over the pass
rng of 11 plays, a number not often
demiied. It will enable some
folks also to determine whether,
af^*r all, Shakespeare was right
in saying, “The play’s the thing ”
if he meant that the actor didn’t
count in the matter. New York
is too well seasoned to tolerate
bad acting. That is why “the
original cast is so strongly de
manded by the hinterland. The
original cast is certain to contain
good actors. It also discloses why
the way of doing things on the
stage often determines whether
that thing is offensive or not
The acting of the Lunts, for in
stance, in "The Reunion in
Vienna, splendidly illustrates
why superb acting saved an other
wise inferior play and caused it
to be ranked with the most de
lightful offerings of the season.
then,' the actor counts for so
much in the theater, is it good
policy to let him fade out of ex
istence? Age ultimately kills off
everything human, and slowly
but surely the great players of the
theater are passing away. Cer
tainly it is a matter of concern
to keep the players, who make the
play ever competent, ever at their
highest pinnacle of theatric art.
And what are our producing
managers, who have made their
living out of them, some of them
their fortunes, done to protect
the succession of acting ability
and efficiency? What Ire the?
doing today? The theater lives
”} it- actors, not in its plays
Magnificent character portrayals
by the actors have done more
than anything else to k«en th»
immortal Shakespeare high in the
heaven of the literary world £n
idol of classic luster on the sta^e
through the centuries when
“thenvise even he might have
faded and passed out from the
mind of man. The preservation
of the great actor is possible only
in the legitimate theater for
there and there only you will find
I exceeded in the street’s mortuary rec
: ords. Some of them had a right to
live longer—“Payment Deferred’’ and
I 'The House of Connelly,” for instance—
but others deserved the knell and the
shroud. One of them, “In Times
Square,” especially earned its gate, it
was such a shabby insult. I suspect
| that every innocent person who went
| to see it in hope of entertainment
registered a vow never again to go to
j r. theater. There has been scores of
similar infirmities this season, crippled
and idiotic menaces to the prosperity
of the stage. I wish that the Actors’
Equity Association, the theater's most
p:werful supervisor, would extend its
i discipline in protection of audiences as
1 well as performers. It demands that
producers deposit a bond to insure the
j payment of wages and salaries. But it
; is indifferent to the welfare of the
actor's b?st friend, the playgoer. Why
not give him a chance, Mr. Gillmore,
and save him from such things as
j "Tire Venetian," “Hot Money,” "Miss
i Gulliver Travels” and “Marriage for
| Three"? Equity should establish a cen
| sership to prohibit the producers frrjn
making fools of themselves and their
j customers.
* * * *
.^BOVE the sobs of Times Square's
failures is to be heard the laughter
of success. Alex Woollcott, a former
| drama critic, is causing buttons to
I burst and sides to split by his cordially
cynical observations in the witty Mr.
Behrman's synthetic comedy, "Brief
Moment." Ed Wynn, the first clown,
turns ennui into gay enthusiasm by
his clean, legitimate and irresistibly
I funny antics in "The Laugh Parade”;
; and it is said that joy is unconfined at j
The Band Wagon.” "The Cat and the
Piddle.” Mr. White’s "Scandals” and
Mr. Carroll’s "Vanities.” Miss Ruth
Gordon i; amusing many people at the
Playhouse in a sweetmeat entitled "A
Church Mouse”; and Miss Helen Hayes
is enlivening her public as a sirupy
and fanciful demi-rep in Mr. Molnar’s |
side show, "The Good Fairy.” I re- j
fuse to be gloomy about the state of
the drama in Times Square, so long as ,
the serene Miss Katherine Cornell con
tinues to turn them away from “The
Barretts of Wimpole Street” and there
is an audience for Mr. Merivale and
Miss Adrian Allen in "Cynara." In case
you. think the stage is dying, try to
make your way through the frenzied
line in front of the Theater Guild's
box office and plead for a ticket to
"Mourning Becomes Electra.”
Wl at else is there to talk about this
morning? Little if anything, except
the brazen burlesque shows in and
around Broadway and Forty-second
street. How' they get away with their
vulgarities is a question to be asked
of Mayor Walker or Mr. Mulrooney,
his police commissioner. 1
Stage and Screen Attractions This Week
♦ ____
BELASCO—“The House Beautiful.” Opens tomorrow evening.
NATIONAL—“Mr. Whistler.” Opens tomorrow evening.
GAYETY—“Jimmie Lake’s Own Show” (burlesque). This after
noon and evening.
ON THE SCREEN.
EARLE—“Platinum Bionde.” This afternoon and evening.
FOX—“X Marks the Spot.” This afternoon and evening.
PALACE—“Rich Man’s Folly.” This afternoon and evening.
R-K-O KEITH’S—“Are These Our Children?” This afternoon
and evening.
RIALTO—“Frankenstein.” This afternoon and evening.
COLUMBIA—“The Champ.” This afternoon and evening.
METROPOLITAN—“The Dreyfus Case.” This afternoon and
evening.
f
ERIC LINDEN and AR.LINE JUDGE
*AR.E THESE OUR. CKILDREN'-Xf/rx'J
Drastic Salary Slashes
For the "Cinema Giants”
One Th eory of Picture- Mak ing Is Favored by Wall
Street—The System of Hollywood Salaries
and Change to Be Made.
By Mollie Merrick.
HOLLYWOOD, Calif., December 5.
—The motion picture's year of
reckoning would seem to be at
hand. Unless the prophecies
of those statisticians who are
howling calamity from the house tops
thes i days are entirely in the WTong,
it will be a hard pull for some of the
producers merrily grinding out gelatin
entertainment to keep their heads above
water under present conditions.
It is the unanimous agreement of all
interested in the manufacture of talk
ing pictures that Irving Thalberg and
Louis B. Mayer, directing the destinies
of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, have
made the most brilliant record for suc
cesses in picture production during the
past year. This opinion would seem i
to be more than strengthened by the j
New York banking crowds, meeting in
executive session, and voting unani
mously on the ability of this team.
Some time ago in these columns I
gave the inside story of Irving Thal
berg's theory of picture making—names
backed by sound stories. But first and
foremost capitalizing personalities to
the world. That this method of pro
cedure has had the most startlingly
successful results the action of New
York bankers proves.
But the Thalberg method has been
successful only from the standpoint
that he has backed his personalities
with good stories and good dialogue.
Other studios have had box office per
sonalities. But they have filled their
mouths with utterly unusable lines and
put them in such silly situations and
I backed by such flimsy drama that they
j could not survive. In the other stu
i dios of Hollywood where conditions far
| from rosy prevail, drastic cuts in sal
| ary for everybody not bound by union
wages must come about. These cuts,
far from the 20 per cent or the odd
dollar cuts of the past year, will be
from 25 to 50 per cent, and there will
be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
There has prevailed in Hollywood a
system of wage-paying disproportionate
to the product given producers. Actors
‘ advised'’ to accept slight cuts last sea
son are up against the alternative of
taking heavy cuts gracefully this year
or working out their contracts under
the signed agreements only to discover
that other producers will never offer
them more than the amount mentioned
under the reduction regime. 11115
sounds depressing, but past experience
has taught actors that when producers
get together there is a unity of pur
pose that is unbreakable.
Directorial salaries during the com
; ing year will be slashed to the bone.
! There are some 10 directors in Holly
wood who are worth every penny of
the money paid them for carrying
stories through to triumphant conclu
sions. The art of writing in gelatin
is a gift not distributed widely. To
those who have it in perfection fabu
lous sums are paid. Half a million a
picture has been given an artist for
making a box-office smash out of what
could be a very ordinary picture.
So these giants of the cinema will,
possibly, not feel the pressure of the
wage cut. But the director who is
earning anywhere from $800 a week to
$5,000 will possibly find himself bring
ing in exactly one-half of last year’s i
income.
The author situation in Hollywood
has been peculiarly difficult to handle.
Authors who formerly wrote novels and
accepted a $500 advance from publish
ers, content that they were being treat
ed in a princely fashion, sat down and
waited for their percentage to come in
quite happily. Those same authors
have been given the habit of the
thousand or two thousand a week Hol
lywood salary, whether or not the
thing they are writing is usable for
pictures when it is completed. Holly
wood^—and the motion picture indus
try—are alone responsible for turning
that industry into a racket and they
will be the ones to suffer from the
dissatisfaction of their people and the j
dissension in the ranks when the exist- [
ing financial conditions of the earth
force them to turn the racket back into !
an industry with stabilized salaries once j
again.
Producers will tomorrow take time j
to find out who they are hiring. There j
will be no white elephant stories bought
with closed eyes. And players who once !
accepted Broadway salaries of three to !
five hundred a week will not expect to J
come here and get five thousand for j
doing poorer work.
(Copyright. 1931. by the North American I
Newspaper Alliance, Inc.) I
RICHARD HALE
* MR-. WHISTLER."
\ NATIONAL
X - T\ 1
JACKIE COOPER.
•the CHAMP^COLUMO/A
-—
Mr. Chaplin Determines
To Play the Heroic Role
Of Warrior N. Bonaparte
So the W oriel May Lose Its Favorite Clown—The
Comedian, Now in London, Is Reported to Be
Planning His Stage Production.
By E. de S. Melcher.
Naboleon has long been
on the mind of Charles
Chaplin. Just as he has
bothered other acting folk
since they began to be cradled
in emotion. This great tragic
tragedian i Napoleon, that is),
whose marital, continental, tri
umphal and digestional trou
bles made him great in the
eyes of the world, has har
rowed more thespians by his
memory than any other pow
er of history. The sad thing
is that Shakespeare couldn’t have
dropped around during his life
time and written him in his
grease-paint annals for the edi
fication of theatrical posterity. If,
for instance, Napoleon could have
uttered, “To be—or not to be,” he
would, no doubt, be more popu
lar today than he is.
Mr. Chaplin is said to be giv
ing up the films in favor of evok
ing a flesh-and-blood “Nappie.”
He has threatened to shake the
dust of Hollywood from his cross
eyed feet and to jump headlong
into something as eloquent as
New York's Theater Guild. After
years and years and years of
making people laugh, he will, per
haps, attempt tq make them cry
(since Mr. Bonaparte was said not
to be a particular laugh king),
and he will appear in a tri-cor
nered hat, with hand thrust
through the portals of his coat
and intone, “On to Elba,” or, per
haps, some other lugubrious dittv.
n seems rather a shame that
just at this particular hour, when
people would give anything to be
able to smile, that Hollywood’s
chief maestro of the laugh should
turn to drama. It sounds almost
as bad as if Will Rogers should
suddenly announce that he will
write a daily ode for the papers.
This because, while Chaplin may
have the heart and soul and all
the great abilities of a fine dra
matic actor, he is still the most
successful of clowns and the one
who has done the most in one
continued vein to making the
films light, silly and wonderfully
digestible entertainment.
Mr. Chaplin, who grew out of
a London fog and has recently
been back, in it, has, of course,
had his “legitimate” experience.
At a tender age he played “Billy”
in a production of “Sherldfek -!
Holmes,” when that gentleman
was the idol of Trafalgar square. |
And he has had his hand at di- |
recting pictures other than the !
hilarious ones centered around his j
own person. But this age knows I
him as “the great Chariot” (this I
in Paris), and he has delighted
the young and old by being his ,
own ridiculous self. ^
* * * *
pERHAPS, the London fogs have
removed his sense of humor
Certain it is that the sudden im
i pulse to give way to Napoleon
j came to him while browsing
admid his tea and scones. At
any rate, this comic virtuoso has
written two full acts of a Na
poleonic saga which has to do, it
is said, with that familiar legend
of Bonaparte’s escape from St.
Helena and of his ultimate com
i ing to 'the United States.
Does Mr. Chaplin think that
there lingers among us now (and
I certain of the old regime do) a
| full-fledged offspring of the great
I little general? Is there a L’Aig
i Ion hiding down in New Orleans?
! Or a great-grandson selling bonds
on Wall Street? Is this play go
ing to reveal Auntie Zilch—ugly.
, plain, unpopular Auntie Zilch.
I whom the relations always
j frowned upon—as the bearer of
neo-noble blood, as the direct
descendant of all sorts of crowned
heads, who has hidden Napoleon
ic jewels in her stockings for
years?
If there is to be the escape from
St. Helena and subsequent excite
ments there would, of course, be
no Josephine. And that seems
rather too bad. There haven't
; been many notable ones on the
stage, and even less on the screen.
Who would be a good one these
days? How about dark-eyed Kay
Francis? Wouldn’t she give Na
poleon a good run for his money?
Kay Francis and Charlie Chap
lin! Well, the latter will have to
eat a lot to look like Napoleon,
and he will have to grow frowns
on his brow, and a slightly
hooked nose in the bargain. But
is it to be straight drama, or deep
dyed melodrama, or a Milnesque
whimsy on the Emperor’s later
cavortings? The film world won
ders—and so do we all. Please,
Mr. Chaplin, a statement!
* * * *
\y HILE traditional characters of
filmland are deserting their
homeland, it seems as though
Washington had seen several
young actors recently (more
than actresses, perhaps, al
though the “Follies” ladies were
not to be sneezed at) who would
be particularly valuable to the
screen. Has, for instance, that
gentleman who gave such a stir
ring performance in “The Crim
inal Code” and who was seen
here a week or so ago witn the
slightly overebulient Mae West
Russell Hardie, done anything on
the screen—and if not, why not?
And also has Robert Douglas,
whom Francine Larrimore
snatched out of the very teeth of
London, been given a try before
the camera?
Since it is evident that day by
day in every way the old order
is giving way to the new, it seems
as though these two clever actors
might give it a good boost. Fur
thermore, these columns guaran
tee that they will be blazing forth
in screen lights before the next
season is passed. As for Alexan
ier Woolcott, he could certainly
jive the Marx Brothers something
to t^ink about. So why doesn't he?