one to see it. It cost almost $100,000 to produce, but the play went by the wayside. Mr. PERKINS. The trouble there is with the public. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I was saying; we do not know whose fault it is. Mr. PERKINS. If the public does not appreciate beautiful things, what can we do about it? The CHAIRMAN. You see, the public does not appreciate the beautiful things, and the critic panders to the plays that are filthy and dirty. Mr. PERKINS. Is it true that these critics under fire The CHAIRMAN. Nobody is under fire. Mr. PERKINS. They would be under my fire, if no one else's. Is it true that they pander to those dirt and lust plays? Mr. COLEMAN. In answering that question I can only speak for myself. I do not. Mr. PERKINS. I would be perfectly amazed to learn that any body of men who made a living at a profession would succeed before the public in pandering to dirt and filth. Mr. COLEMAN. I pointed out that on one occasion I conducted a campaign against that. Mr. PERKINS. And it was successful? Mr. COLEMAN. It was successful; yes. Mr. PERKINS. You are entitled to credit for it. The CHAIRMAN. I want to call the distinguished gentleman's attention to this fact, that New York City cleans its own theaters, because its public conscience is aroused. We have honorable and honest men in New York who would not stand for it. Mr. PERKINS. That is fine. The CHAIRMAN. Whether critics would approve them or anyone else, we have gone so far in New York as to have the police raid these plays and bring the participants before our courts, where they have been found guilty. We do not depend upon critics to tell us things are not good. We have a public conscience in New York that will stand up for right plays. Mr. PERKINS. That is a splendid thing. The CHAIRMAN. So far as criticism of plays go, no one can tell much from that. I saw a play here called Distant Drums, a beautiful play, with high ideals, and properly presented, but the people did not like it, and it went by the wayside. Mr. COLEMAN. I will have to disagree with you. I did not like it. Mr. PERKINS. That is what one man wanted, but no one else? The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. You made the statement before that theaters are like hotels. Mr. COLEMAN. No; I did not compare the theater in any way with hotels. In fact, it was not my idea to criticize the commercial aspects of the theater, because, after all, I am a critic of the play. I am not a critic of managerial methods, of finance. I merely attempted to answer those questions because they were put to me. The CHAIRMAN. Here is an example of men changing their minds. Here is Congressman Perkins, one of our most distinguished Members of Congress Mr. PERKINS. Do not put too much in this record. 113839-32-36 The CHAIRMAN. But this will be something you will not object to. He was always a dry, up to to-day, but he is changing his mind and becoming a wet to-day and he is going to vote with me. I say that because I want to pay tribute to the gentleman. Then here is Congressman Rich. We have been holding hearings from early January to this date, and I never had a hearing with one or two exceptions when he has not been present every morning at these hearings. He has been conscientious and willing and faithful, and he is a Republican, whereas I am a Democrat, but I pay him that respect. So I want to say to you, after all, that the theater is a place where we build up the morale of men and women. It develops culture and education, and no tax should be put upon it; but, instead of bringing out the sales tax, and instead of bringing out a tax of 10 per cent on the theaters, where we charge 214 per cent on other business, we ought to put beer into realization and we could collect 2 cents on every bottle, which would give us $500,000,000, and that would take care of the need for a sales tax [applause]; it would be instrumental in helping the hotels, because the hotels are becoming a place where people only sleep; the people go to dine in speakeasies, and therefore the hotels are going to pieces. Mr. Coleman, let me take this opportunity of telling you how deeply we appreciate your kindness and sweetness in coming here and to know that you are with us 100 per cent, and I wish that we could go back with you and see how you review a play. Mr. COLEMAN. I was going to make that suggestion, that it would give me great pleasure to have the learned chairman of this committee, with the other distinguished members of the committee, come to New York and to follow as my guests the work of the critic from the opening of a play until the issue of the criticism in the final edition of the Daily Mirror. It would be an especial pleasure to me to have the chairman of this committee act as my guest critic. I am very sincere about that. I do wish the members of this committee would accept the invitation. The CHAIRMAN. I accept the invitation and will let you know when I can be with you. LIVINGSTON'S INTERNATIONAL CASTING DIRECTORY, Hon. WILLIAM L. SIROVICH, Representative, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SIROVICH: May I be permitted to say to you, that you have opened up a question with reference to your call of the newspapers' critics that the amusement and those at the heads of it should put a crown of flowers on your head. To you all glory should go; you have started after something that has caused more loss in the theater than any 100 things you could name. What would be the result if every business man or woman who went into business, and who would put anywhere from $10,000 to $250,000 in that business, and after weeks and weeks of labor and fret and what not, on opening that business, the next morning have a few people come out and tell the world that business was rotten or words to that effect. I tell you, Mr. Sirovich, you have opened up a question that to-day is the biggest question in the entire amusement business, go after it. Why should it not be a crime when just a few men are allowed to come out and condemn a business such as the critics do. Is there any other business in the world to-day in which the same thing can take place? If it were done to other lines of business, would the men at the heads of those lines of business have redress through a lawsuit for slander and recover some of the loss that had to accept? Why not have the same apply to the amusement business? In this day and age, why carry on such things? Why carry a lot of men who have never written a success in their life, yet who are permitted to condemn another man's business. In my poor way of expressing myself, I say you are and should be congratulated for your stand of fair play to the producer in the amusement world. Just another word, if I may. How can a critic tell his public about the play when he slips out after the second act? And how they fly after the second act. Ask any Western Union or Postal Telegraph office how they come in and start to write up the play before it's over. They are just a joke; but the public must be bunked, and it needs a man like you to open up their eyes, Mr. Sirovich. Good luck, you are on a just cause, one that should be changed; go to it, and may God speed you in winning for the sake of good clean business. Very sincerely, JACK LIVINGSTON. Hon. WILLIAM SIROVICH, Washington, D. C. BRANDT THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Congratulations upon your splendid fight against the irresponsible dramatic critic. It certainly is most heartbreaking, after author, director, actors, scenic artists and managers have combined to give a play their very best talent, after countless hours of rehearsal and effort, that these gentlemen obstensibly representing the public, instead of giving such play an actual review, cram their criticism with vitriolic sarcasm and ravishing destructive personal opinions, thus ofttimes overnight destroying valuable theater property. A new fad in play reviewing is a serios of wisecracks, each reviewer trying to "out Winchell" Winchell. It is a well-known fact that a certain critic writes as he feels-pity the show if his indigestion is bad that night; and it is also well known that with few exceptions these almighty gentlemen, from whose decision there is no appeal, leave their seats long before the finish of the performance, annoying the rest of the audience to distraction, and yet are able to write about the complete show in the following day's newspaper. No other industry in the world would stand for such high-handed destructive tactics, yet it would be commercial suicide for a theater manager to protest. These supermen never forget or forgive, so that while you may for the moment incur the editorial enmity of some of the newspapers because of the stand you are taking, you have earned the everlasting gratitude of the entire personnel of the theater, and that of the theater-going public by putting this abuse in the spotlight of public opinion. Very sincerely yours, WILLIAM BRANDT. Hon. WILLIAM I. SIROVICH, NEW YORK CITY, March 2, 1932. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: I was agreably surprised yesterday upon reading in the local press about your effort to bring about some sort of reform in theatrical criticism as practiced by metropolitan reviewers. In my humble way, as a lover of the theater and an inconspicuous writer, I have for the past year waged a very small ineffectual war personally upon the dramatic critics, but thus far with no result. Last summer I clipped about 150 reviews of 47 plays produced in this city between November 1, 1930, and the beginning of January, 1931, analyzed them, and wrote an article entitled "Are Dramatic Critics a Nuisance?" I also did considerable research on the subject, and the resulting effort is, I believe, the most logical, most thoroughly documented presentation of the anticritic side ever attempted. It is 3,500 words in length. I tried to sell the article to every possible market in New York, but found no buyer. It is now with the Atlantic Monthly, who, perhaps stimulated by the publicity now given the subject, may buy it. You are absolutely right in your contention that the critics are ruining the theatrical business. My analysis shows that conclusively. A mortality of about 85 per cent of all metropolitan theatrical productions is not normal, even considering the unquestioned deleterious effects of the economic depression. I doubt, however, if much can be done to remedy the situation through congressional action as long as the newspaper editors give the critics an absolutely free hand and exploit their personalities. In my opinion they are recreant to their public duty in not making judicious use of the blue pencil. I believe you will find my article, when published, a dispassionate and convincing presentation of the subject and hope that the Atlantic Monthly will see fit to publish it. You ought to be able to use the data cited therein to good effect. With best wishes for a successful battle in behalf of the theater as a public institution, I am Very sincerely yours, NORBERT LYONS. LIVING THEATRE PRODUCTIONS (INC.), Representative W. I. SIROVICH, Chairman of House Committee on Patents, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SIROVICH: As a producing group on Broadway, we want to add our voice to those who have already spoken, to give you every possible word of cheer, encouragement, and approbation in the magnificent stand you have taken on the subject of drama critics. The tremendous number of dark houses in New York City, the thousands of hungry actors walking the streets in search of employment, and the hundreds of others who are idle owing to continual closing of fine and worth-while plays, can be laid directly at the door of these so-called drama critics. Scarce a dozen men have been allowed to grow into a cruel autocracy with unlimited power to wreck an essential industry, to deprive men and women of their means of livelihood, and to mislead and distort the minds of the theatergoing public. All success be yours and ours. PAUL JONES, Eexecutive Manager. WRITERS' GUILD, Hon. WILLIAM I. SIROVICH, WELLESLEY, Mass., March 26, 1932. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Writers' Guild, an American association of writers and composers, wishes to thank you heartily for your courageous move to rid the theater of parasitical dramatic critics. Not only have the critics maliciously derided many a worthy play but have logrolled many inferior plays to synthetic success. We wish that the scope of your proposed legislation could be extended to include the music critics who have blasted many a promising career and who are, if possible, even more insincere and venal than their brothers of the drama. Sincerely yours, R. DE C. LELAND, Secretary. Hon. WILLIAM I. SIROVICH, NEW YORK, March 1, 1932. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Reading the article in the New York Sun last night, I can not refrain from writing to you to say what a splendid thing it will be if through your efforts you can correct this evil of unjust criticism by the theatrical critics in the New York newspapers. I have spent a lifetime in seeing a large portion of the good plays and musical plays in New York, besides being a regular opera subscriber; but I find my taste rarely, if ever, agrees with the critics, although it is people like myself and my friends who help support the theater by spending large sums of money annually. About two years ago I enjoyed a lovely musical play, which was a real play with fine music, and I was amazed the next morning to read in the New York Times a miserable article by Atkinson, the arch enemy of the actors and the producers, who evidently was suffering from an unusually severe attack of biliousness. I wrote to the Times praising the play, but the letter was not printed. Apparently, there is a "racket" in this as in most everything else. My taste is in harmony with that of my friends; and it has gotten to be so bad that we now feel quite sure that the play adversely criticized by the critic, who spends a few minutes or none at all at a show, must be well worth seeing, and frequently this has been found to be the case. A favorable criticism occurs so seldom as to be unworthy of consideration. John Golden on the radio recently affirmed this opinion. Yours truly, JLR/C. J. L. RIDGWAY. (Whereupon, at 11.55 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned.) |