Nov. 27, 'Miss Diana Wynyard has sumed work on the London stage, Approving her latest character study @ London critic says, in effect, that she is unspoilt' by Hollywood and is showing herself to be a true artist, The news is interesting for it coincides with the recent developments which suggest that Hollywood itself is beginning to wonder whether {ts habit of creating "stars" is sound, For just over a hundred years the term "star" has been current in theatrical Jargon. In England tt soon lost its appeal to the legitimate stage, Victorians applied it more to music-hall eminence than artists like Irving or Terry. It found its way to circus bills casionally, but even mu steal comedy was disinclined to rob the musie-hall of the exclusive right to the term. So, Dan Leno, Little Rich. Albert Chevallier, ' Marie Lloyd, Vesta Tilley, George Robey id the rest were' recognized as tars." George Alexander, bert Tree, Charles Wyndham, Ellen Terry, Mary Moore and their jeolleagues were content to be sading actors and actresses. The tainment of the rank of "star" in the variety profession was no easy task. It carried with it definite privileges and definite responsibilites. Artists would have it clearly understood that their position on the "bill" and the size of the print conveying their names to the public, depended on their relative values to the rest of the ptogramme. A "star" would take care to see that his or her turn did not come too early and, if Possible, it should follow a com-Paratively unimportant perform-jer's appearance. More than once when a minor "turn' had unex. pectedly proved to be an astonish ing success, the "star put next to refused to "go on" until the mosphere had been given a sedan tive by some less thrilling form of entertainment, The—music-hall system of changing the places in the programme lent itself readily this means of placating out. raged genius. Sometimes the genius had a" shock which intimated the first signs of waning popularity, The cinema took up the word and, with the enthusiasm of a new cult, applied it vigorously and with little regard to tradition, The view prevailed that the film was made for the "star" not the "star" for the film, Automatically the process of making a "star" was put into force and it eventually seemed that the "star" was selected for that honour, not by the public but by the mysterious powers behind the Hollywood. thrones. The result was highly satisfactory to the fortunate selection. It appropriately gave astronomical significance to the salary lists. Whether it was good business—leaving art altogether out of account—must bea matter of opinion. Certainly there is evidence that, ina time of depres sion when values are being closely scrutinized, Hollywood is now doubtful. "It may also be surmise ed that some of the extravagances
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.