The theatre of science; a volume of progress and achievement in the motion picture industry (1914)

of^cience 125 Drew is a better actor, generally speaking, than the idolized John Drew. As the latter is due to appear on the screen, this is a question that may, after all, be decided by the tremendous photoplay public. I am reminded here of a rather abrupt answer to this question given by a still-living Southern manager, who in one season had booked John and Sydney Drew with separate companies about six weeks apart. When this manager came to New York in the summer to book attractions, he was stopped on Broadway by a professional friend, who ventured to discuss conditions in the South. Said he : "I see you played both John and Sydney Drew in Mobile. Which attracted the best?" "Well, that's easy," retorted the Southerner. "John Drew but Sydney didn't." Any controversy as to the relative artistic qualities of the brothers Drew, if decided in the film studio, may have a final result quite similar to others which changed conditions in the amusement field have created. In one Western studio, appearing in minor roles, is a former stage celebrity who less than five years ago employed his present director at a weekly salary of $25, while the director referred to is also the star of the productions in which both now appear, the latter finds in his pay envelope each seven days a check written in four figures. While this is an exceptional case, remarkable changes of this nature may be noted in almost all of the larger film organizations. As for Sydney Drew, when he decided to enter the newer field about a year ago, he was fully aware of the fact that his hard-earned reputation would count for little. To the writer Drew stated that he was attracted by the goal of "building up something"; in