d by him were found to be extremely entertaining and
diverting to his friends, but when presented on the stage to a
dispassionate audience they did not always fare so well. A notable
example was "The Hyphen." The big, patriotic speech of the old
German-American in the third act made an immense impression on Frohman
when he read the play. It led him to produce the piece in record time.
He recited it to every caller; he almost lost sight of the rest of the
play in his admiration for the central effort. But the audience and the
critics only saw this speech as part of a long play.
What Charles lacked in his study of plays in manuscript was the
analytical quality. He could feel that certain scenes and speeches would
have an emotional appeal, but he could not probe down beneath the
surface for the why and the wherefore. For analysis, as for details, he
had scant time. He accepted plays mainly for their general effect.
He was very susceptible to any charm that a play held out. If he found
the characters sympathetic, attractive, and lovable, that would outweigh
any objections made on technical grounds. When once he determined to
produce a play, only a miracle could prevent him. The more his
associates argued to the contrary, the more dogged he became. He had
superb confidence in his judgment; yet he invariably accepted failure
with serenity and good spirit. He always assumed the responsibility. He
listened sometimes to suggestions, but his views were seldom colored by
them.
His association with men like J. M. Barrie, Haddon Chambers, Paul
Potter, William Gillette, Arthur Wing Pinero, and Augustus Thomas gave
him a loftier insight into the workings of the drama. He was quick to
absorb ideas, and he had a strong and retentive memory for details.
Frohman loved to present farce. He enjoyed this type of play himself
because it appealed to his immense sense of humor. He delighted in
rehearsing the many complications and entanglements which arise in such
plays. The enthusiasm with which French audiences greeted their native
plays often misled him. He felt that American theater-goers would be
equally uproarious. But often they failed him.
The same thing frequently happened with English plays. He would be swept
off his feet by a British production; he was at once sure that it would
be a success in New York. But New York, more than once, upset this
belief. The reason was that Frohman saw these plays as an Englishman. He
had the
|