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 cosmopolitan point of view that the average play-goer in America lacked.
This leads to the interesting subject of "locality" in plays. Frohman once summed up this whole question:
"As I go back and forth, crossing and recrossing the Atlantic, the audiences on both sides seem more and more like one. Always, of course, each has his own particular viewpoint, according to the side of the Atlantic I happen to be on. But often they think the same, each from its own angle.
"You bring your English play to America. n.o.body is at all disturbed by the mention of Park Lane or Piccadilly Circus. If there is drama in the play, if in itself it interests and holds the audience, n.o.body pays any attention to its locality or localisms.
"But an English audience sitting before an American play hears mention of West Twenty-third Street or Washington Square, and while it is wondering just where and what these localities are an important incident in the dramatic action slips by unnoticed. Not that English audiences are at all prejudiced against American plays. They take them in the same general way that Americans take English plays. Each public asks, "What have you got?" As soon as it hears that the play is good it is interested.
"English audiences, for example, were quick to discover the fun in "The Dictator" when Mr. Collier acted it in London, though it was full of the local color of New York, both in the central character and in the subject. Somehow the type and the speeches seemed to have a sort of universal humor. I tried it first on Barrie. He marked in the ma.n.u.script the places that he could understand. The piece never went better in America.
"On the other hand, one reason why "Brewster"s Millions" did not go well in London was because the severely logical British mind took it all as a business proposition. The problem was sedately figured out on the theory that the young man did not spend the inherited millions.
"If the locality of an American play happens to be a mining village, it is better to change its scenes to a similar village in Australia when you take the play to London. Then the audience is sure to understand.
The public of London gave "The Lion and the Mouse" an enthusiastic first night, but it turned out that they had not comprehended the play. It was unthinkable to them that a judge should be disgraced and disbarred by a political "ring.""
The ideal play for Charles Frohman was always the one that he had in mind for a particular star. His special desire, however, was for strong and emotional love as the dominant force in the drama. He felt that all humanity was interested in love, and he believed it established a congenial point of contact between the stage and the audience.
Although he did not especially aspire to Shakespearian production, he used the great bard"s works as models for appraising other plays.
"Shakespeare invented farce comedy," he once said, "and whenever I consider the purchase of such a thing I compare its scenes with the most famous of all farces, "The Taming of the Shrew." It goes without saying that when it comes to the stage of the production, my aim is to imbue the performance with a spirit akin to that contained in Shakespeare"s humorous masterpiece."
Frohman often "went wrong" on plays. He merely accepted these mistakes as part of the big human hazard and went on to something new. His amazing series of errors of judgment with plays by Augustus Thomas is one of the traditions of the American theater. The reader already knows how he refused "Arizona" and "The Earl of Pawtucket," and how they made fortunes for other managers.
One of the most extraordinary of these Thomas mistakes was with "The Witching Hour." It was about the only time that he permitted his own decision to be swayed by outside influence, and it cost him dearly.
The author read the play to Frohman on a torrid night in midsummer.
Frohman, as usual, sat cross-legged on a divan and sipped orangeade incessantly.
Thomas, who has all the art and eloquence of a finished actor, read his work with magnetic effect. When he finished Frohman sat absolutely still for nearly five minutes. It seemed hours to the playwright, who awaited the decision with tense interest. Finally Frohman said in a whisper:
"That is almost too beautiful to bear."
A pause followed. Then he said, eagerly:
"When shall we do it; whom do you want for star?"
"I"d like to have Gillette," replied Thomas.
"You can"t have him," responded Frohman. "He"s engaged for something else."
With this the session ended. Frohman seemed strangely under the spell of the play. It made him silent and meditative.
The next day he gave the ma.n.u.script to some of his close a.s.sociates to read. They thought it was too psychological for a concrete dramatic success. To their great surprise he agreed with them.
"The Witching Hour" was produced by another manager and it ran a whole season in New York, and then duplicated its success on the road. This experience made Frohman all the more determined to keep his own counsel and follow his instincts with regard to plays thereafter, and he did.
Charles regarded play-producing just as he regarded life--as a huge adventure. An amusing thing happened during the production of "The Other Girl," a play by Augustus Thomas, in which a pugilist has a prominent role.
Lionel Barrymore was playing the part of the prize-fighter, who was generally supposed to be a stage replica of "Kid" McCoy, then in the very height of his fistic powers. In the piece the fighter warns his friends not to bet on a certain fight. The lines, in substance, were:
"You have been pretty loyal to me, but I am giving you a tip not to put any money down on that "go" in October."
One day Frohman found Barrymore pacing nervously up and down in front of his office.
"What"s the matter, Lionel?" he asked.
"Well," was the reply, "I am very much disturbed about something. I made a promise to "Kid" McCoy, and I don"t know how to keep it. You know I have a line in the play in which the prize-fighter warns his friends not to bet on him in a certain fight in October. The "Kid," who has been at the play nearly every night since we opened, now has a real fight on for October, and he is afraid it will give people the idea that it is a "frame-up.""
"You mean to say that you want me to change Mr. Thomas"s lines?" asked Frohman, seriously.
"I can"t ask you to do that," answered Barrymore. "But I promised the "Kid" to speak to you about it, and I have kept my word."
Frohman thought a moment. Then he said, gravely:
"All right, Lionel, I"ll postpone the date of the fight in the play until November, even December, but not a day later."
Frohman was not without his sense of imitation. He was quick to follow up a certain type or mood whether it was in the vogue of an actor or the character of a play. This story will ill.u.s.trate:
One night early in February, 1895, Frohman sat in his wonted corner at Delmonico"s, then on Broadway and Twenty-sixth Street. He had "The Fatal Card," by Chambers and Stephenson, on the boards at Palmer"s Theater; he also had A. M. Palmer"s Stock Company on the road in Sydney Grundy"s play "The New Woman." This naturally gave him a lively interest in Mr.
Palmer"s productions.
Paul Potter, who was then house dramatist at Palmer"s, bustled into the restaurant with the plot of a new novel which had been brought to his attention by the news-stand boy at the Waldorf. Frohman listened to his recital with interest.
"What is the name of the book?" he asked.
"Trilby," replied Potter.
"Well," he continued, "it ought to be called after that conjurer chap, Bengali, or whatever his name is. However, go ahead. Get Lackaye back from "The District Attorney" company to which Palmer has lent him.
Engage young Ditrichstein by all means for one of your Bohemians. Call in Virginia Harned and the rest of the stock company. And there you are."
With uncanny precision he had cast the leading roles perfectly and on the impulse of the moment.
During the fortnight of the incubation of the play Potter saw Frohman nightly, for they were now fast friends. Frohman was curiously fascinated by "Bengali," as he insisted upon calling Svengali.
"We do it next Monday in Boston," said Potter, "and I count on your coming to see it."
Frohman went to Boston to see the second performance. After the play he and Potter walked silently across the Common to the Thornd.y.k.e Hotel. In his room Frohman broke into speech:
"They are roasting it awfully in New York," he began. "Yet Joe Jefferson says it will go around the world." Then he added, "They say you have cut out all the Bohemian stuff."
"Nevertheless," replied Potter, "W. A. Brady has gone to New York to-night to offer Mr. Palmer ten thousand dollars on account for the road rights."
"Well," said Frohman, showing his hand at last, "Jefferson and Brady are right, and if Palmer will let me in I"ll go half and half, or, if he prefers, I"ll take it all."
At supper after the first performance at the Garden Theater in New York, Frohman advised Sir Herbert Tree to capture the play for London.
Henceforth, wherever he traveled, "Trilby" seemed to pursue him.
"I"ve seen your old "Bengali,"" he wrote Potter, "in Rome, Vienna, Berlin, everywhere. It haunts me. And, as you cut out the good Bohemian stuff, I"ll use it myself at the Empire."