Page:The New Yorker 0004, 1925-03-14.pdf/11



He must glorify the American girl to the limit

ET me explain, at the beginning of this profound treatise,that I am not a Professor of Dramatic Art. I attend all the shows, but until I read what Woollcott and Broun have to say, I never have the slightest idea whether theplay is good or bad.

Even then, it used to be a puzzle to me, until I discovered the method by which the New York police de-termine the religion of the babies they pick up from time to time. It is known as the Odd or Even System. No. 1 is a Catholic, No. 2 a Protestant, No. 3 a Catholic, and so on, except in the occasional in-stance where the youngster can prove that he was never meant to be a Christian.

My system is still simpler. I give Broun all the decisions on the odd days of the month, while the others all go to Woollcott. In the meantime, I don't care a snap whether the play is good or bad. I am not a Professor of Dramatic Art. I am a Professor of New-yorkology. As a guide to the theatre, this lecture will be worthless. It is intended only for those earnest students of life who are forever asking the question:"What does a New Yorker Think About? And if so, Why?"

In discussing the Ziegfeld Follies, however, I feel free to ignore both Woollcott and Broun. This show was never cut out to be drama, and I can't see what the dramatic critics have to do with it.

Take that Mitty and Tillio number, for instance.It isn't drama. It's osteopathy. Osteopathy De Luxe,and the audience is undoubtedly interested, but calling it a dance doesn't fool anybody but a dramatic critic. The program didn't say which was Mitti and which was Tillio, but whichever one was the girl was admirably undressed for the part. I do not mean that her costume was bold. Far from it. It was positively shrinking. When Ann Pennington appeared, everybody looked at her knees, but when this girl was on the stage, people hardly noticed her knees at all.They looked directly at her. But I set out to discuss the Follies of Florenz Ziegfeld. You won't find them in the show. Imagine,for instance, calling Will Rogers a Folly. Rogers is a Fact. Rogers is a Point of View. Rogers is a Personal Experience which every New Yorker must have for himself. Follies can be avoided, but Will Rogers can't. One might as well try to avoid adolescence or the income tax. Fight against it as he may, there comes a time in the life of every New Yorker when he finds himself face to face with Will Rogers and the way in which he meets this crisis will just about determine his future happiness. If he accepts Will Rogers and makes the most of him, he may find life a joy; if he continues to struggle, there is little hope.

Probably Mr. Ziegfeld's greatest folly is the notion, which he sometimes entertains, of discontinuing the Follies. Mr. Ziegfeld does not seem to be acquainted with himself. He thinks he is a person. He doesn't know that he is an institution. He is at once the most powerful and the most powerless man in town. For it is the Ziegfeld Follies, not Tammany Hall, which regulates life in the metropolis, nevertheless, Mr. Ziegfeld is not permitted to have anything to say about it.

The most that Tammany can do to New York is to give it a government. Whether it gives us a good